What Defines A Scientist?

“Keith Baugues is not a scientist, but that didn’t stop him on a recent wintry day from expressing skepticism about global warming — something that is broadly accepted in the scientific community.”

“Baugues studied engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology in Terre Haute and has spent six years at the Department of Environmental Management and nine years with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.” USA Today

So what did Keith Baugues write such that USA Today chose to identify him as “not a scientist”?:

“He took to a government message board one day in February, complaining that his normal 45-minute commute had turned into a painful three-hour slog. “Anyone who says global warming is obviously suffering from frostbite,” he wrote.”

“Baugues would later say he was only joking. But he wasn’t just any government bureaucrat. Baugues is assistant commissioner in the Office of Air Quality in the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, the man in charge of cleaning up Indiana’s air.” USA Today

And what was the predictable response to an “assistant commissioner in the Office of Air Quality” joke and declaration that “I am a skeptic on global warming”?:

“Reaction was swift, according to remarks posted to the message board reviewed by The Indianapolis Star. Several IDEM staff members wrote that the comment flew in the face of nearly unanimous scientific consensus and offended and embarrassed them.

“Either support consensus science or please keep your opinions to yourself. The rest of us are embarrassed by your unwillingness to accept what is happening,” one worker wrote.

Another said that Baugues “should not speak on such matters until he is better informed.” Then that person, who was not named, took pains to point out that recent extremes of cold weather were caused by warming global temperatures. That resulted in more water being absorbed into the atmosphere, pushing the arctic jet stream farther south.” USA Today

The assertion that “warming global temperature” “resulted in more water being absorbed into the atmosphere, pushing the arctic jet stream farther south.” is demonstrably false. Even the author of the paper that this assertion has based upon has backtracked and said “I also agree that greenhouse-gas induced warming will reduce, not increase, the likelihood of breaking cold temperature records” Dot Earth

The claims of Baugues detractors appear to be empty rhetoric, e.g.:

“‘The fact that [Baugues] disparages the exact kind of science that disproves his statement only further illustrates how out of touch this administration is with the current environmental crisis facing not only Hoosiers, but the entire world,” the person wrote.'”USA Today

Furthermore, USA Today uses two duplicitous canards in claiming that:

More than 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists agree that warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, according to several studies published on the NASA website.”

Firstly, the 97 percent number has been demonstrated to be false and the claim that “warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities” is erroneous, because there is no credible evidence that Anthropogenic CO2 emissions prior to 1950 were sufficient to influence Earth’s Temperature. In fact NASA’s website actually states that:

“Climate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750—omitting observed increases in greenhouse gases—are able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950.”

Duplicity aside, USA Today’s “not a scientist” attack is similar to one that was leveled against our own Willis Eschenbach by this site PopularTechnology.net, i.e.:

“He is not a “computer modeler”, he is not an “engineer” and he is certainly not a “scientist” (despite all ridiculous claims to the contrary).”

Popular Technology cites Webster’s definition of a Scientist to support their assertion, i.e.:

“a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems”

PopularTechnology.net claims that:

“Willis has no educational background or any professional experience as a scientist. The only thing he can be considered is an amateur scientist.”

However, Webster is but one definition of a scientist, so let’s take a look at the others. Dictionary.com defines a scientist as:

“an expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences.”

“a person who studies or practices any of the sciences or who uses scientific methods”

“a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.”

Wikipedia defines a scientist as:

“A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.[2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.”

In terms of Webster’s definition of a scientist as “a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems”, it is shown to be inaccurate by the fact that Einstein was a Patent Clerk when he wrote the Annus Mirabilis papers:

“The Annus Mirabilis papers (from Latin annus mīrābilis, “extraordinary year”) are the papers of Albert Einstein published in the Annalen der Physik scientific journal in 1905. These four articles contributed substantially to the foundation of modern physics and changed views on space, time, and matter. The Annus Mirabilis is often called the “Miracle Year” in English or Wunderjahr in German.”

“At the time the papers were written, Einstein did not have easy access to a complete set of scientific reference materials, although he did regularly read and contribute reviews to Annalen der Physik. Additionally, scientific colleagues available to discuss his theories were few. He worked as an examiner at the Patent Office in Bern, Switzerland, and he later said of a co-worker there, Michele Besso, that he “could not have found a better sounding board for his ideas in all of Europe”.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers

LOL! I read some of the comments. Same old worn out bloviating Leftist pap. They can’t think for themselves, so must Appeal to Authority. Anyone questioning the cult leaders are told to shut up and stop watching Fox News.

Yesterday at 2:42 p.m. the following was posted at the USA Today site:
NOTE: I do not have Erik Beagues permission to repost his reply. However his reply adds additional pertinent content to the above blog. I hope he will forgive my actions as they are in the spirit of supporting full disclosure, as opposed to USA Today’s actions.

“Erik Baugues · Sr. IT Developer at State Collection Service Inc
Not a Scientist…. to categorize engineers as not scientist is an affront to all the people who work in this great profession, including myself. He is a bio-medical engineer (Bachelor of Science) who has studied, researched, and published hundreds of scientific journals and papers that have strengthened our ability to understand and monitor air pollution. My father has spent his 37 year career as an environmentalist helping improve air quality standards for both Indiana and the nation. He is dedicated to the health and protection of the citizens he serves. At EPA, he won a congressional medal of honor for his work in helping craft the original Clean Air Act. He is considered a national expert in air quality for his dedication and benefits to this discipline. Under his leadership, air quality has consistently improved in Indiana. To undercut his credentials, dedication, and ability because he is skeptical of all conclusions drawn out by the media’s popular portrayal of global warming is ludicrous. You have twisted his words to further your career and your own agenda; you should be ashamed of yourself. Why don’t you go attack the real polluters and stop trying to hurt people helping the environment? As a father of four in Indiana I’m proud to have him serve this great state and I sleep well knowing his is protecting the air my children breathe.”

Consensus Brownshirts goose stepping to the beat of the drum, shutting down anyone NOT in the Consensus.
Consensus killed people while they pushed enviro contamination as cause birth defects on the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo…from folic acid deficits.
Consensus is killing infants in Oregon who think their reoccurring fatal birth defects are from the enviro….when its from folic acid deficits itn heir diet.
Consensus killed coral reefs because Consensus said it was acidic oceans…instead of addressing outbreaks of starfish eating the coral.
Consensus killed bee colonies as everyone raced around looking for enviro factors….instead of going after any other, real, causes.
Consensus populist rumor and fads Kill.

He or she is INTENDED to reside in an ivory tower of no small reputation – and no connection with reality. He or she is INTENDED to “study” the world and its place in the universe …

And EVERY “scientist” is deliberately and professionally and legally NOT responsible and in fact is NOT ALLOWED to actually build or create or license or design ANYTHING that the public must use or can operate or can live in!

So, the real world DOES NOT TRUST a “scientist” to actually “build” a simple bridge or house or tunnel or even a roadside sign. To do ANY of those REQUIRES you to be a legally registered engineer. And, to further that distinction between a “PhD in ANY science” and “only” a bachelor’s in engineering, you MUST have that BS in engineering (and NOT a PhD in any scientific field!) just to qualify to go before the state licensing boards in each state to be tested for that engineering license.

Sure. A “scientist” knows some details in his or her field to a greater depth than an engineer. But EVERY engineer is required to make that scientist’s theory and equation work in the real world of friction, drag, turbulence, resistance, erosion, corrosion, dust, vacuum, airs, gasses, magnetism, eddy currents, heat loss, heat gain, convection, conduction, evaporation, radiation, bending, bowing, vibration, weaving, surface wear, surface galling, surface tolerances, stress, fatigue, stretch, strain, and fractures.

And ALL of those problems MUST be really solved or mitigated or minimized within the REAL confines of time, money, budgets, machinery, machining, welding, currents, programs, slop, tolerances, and imperfections.

The “scientist” ? A “climate scientist” needs to do nothing but apply for more grants. Nothing but running theoretical models that don’t work.

So, what is the difference between a “scientist’ and an “engineer” ? The real world.

Baugues as an engineer is an applied scientist. All engineering is based on science. In my experience, engineers are some of the most logical & careful thinkers I have encountered – far less likely to be swayed by data-less, emotional claims, such as those spouted by climate alarmists.

Most engineers have a Bachelor of Science degree or higher. For my BS, I studied chemistry, physics, mathematics, and many engineering courses, plus heat transfer (including radiation into gases!), stoichiometry, etc., plus a smattering of economics, astronomy, psych, history, and various other electives, 144 semester hours in all. I’d say anyone with a similar, science-heavy engineering degree is a scientist. I’ve met several people with degrees in so-called “Environmental Engineering.” They mostly took survey courses, few or no labs, and next to no mathematics. The ones I met were neither scientists nor engineers.

I have great respect for the researchers and scientists that have allowed us to “apply” science to providing solutions – which includes many engineering researchers doing empirical studies.

I really don’t know about all the “science” of global warming but I know which way I lean. Today I did over 35,000 feet of vertical on a ski hill thanks to the new technology that allows old geezers like me to ski all day without pain. And it’s snowing. Maybe the world is warming, maybe it’s not but I haven’t noticed a change in the snow on this ski hill nearly 70 years. Course that’s just a drop in time in the geological record that I assume all engineers still study, That perspective tends to lead to a touch of skepticism for some of us.

ZombieSymmetry says:
April 5, 2014 at 8:27 pm
“I’ve actually been watching skeptic blogs hoping someone would step in on the ruthless public beating that Pielke has received over all this, but everyone has been silent.”

Nyaa… Pielke’s a warmist. Why should we help him when he’s devoured by his own.

It is the method.
Unless a person applies the scientific method, they are not acting as a scientist.
No matter how many white lab coats they parade in, or how high they creep in academia.
Just as so many of the current social studies classes call themselves sciences, when it is clear they are not.
The current discussions from the easily alarmed or profits of CAGW, “NOT a Proper Scientist” is standard rubbish from the parasite culture.
Not a proper priest of the Cult of Calamitous Climate, unless they agree with the other priests.
O Yay we have a consensus.
Funny how application of scientific method requires rigorous scepticism, yet the self styled Climatologists, constantly demean sceptical questioners glorify opinion over data and wallow in appeal to authority.
Being deemed Not a Proper Climate scientist, is a blessing.
One only has to look to the eminent IPCC “scientists” to wonder if Gilbert and Sullivan did the cast recruiting.
I am the very model of a modelling Climatologist, I am so special I never will be missed.

Between 1901 and 1904, Einstein published five papers in Annalen der Physik, the leading peer-reviewed physics journal of the time. He also completed his Ph.D. thesis in 1905.

So he wasn’t a “scientist” when he “was working at the patent office” on “questions about transmission of electric signals and electrical-mechanical synchronization of time, two technical problems that show up conspicuously in the thought experiments that eventually led Einstein to his radical conclusions about the nature of light and the fundamental connection between space and time”?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

If you want to make him out to be an amateur on a par with WUWT bloggers… well, whatever.

Misinterpret it as you wish, but I think every one else here can see the difference between classifying them all as scientists versus classifying them all as possibly the best scientist ever to exist…

If you study the bible to figure out how the world is made does that make you a scientist?
By some definitions it would, which is why an exact definition is required to identify science from pseudoscience.

That is the whole point of the scientific method.
Science is a methodology.
A scientist is a person who employs that methodology.

As the von storch survey showed the vast majority of climate scientist are computer modellers who have studied applied maths through meteorology departments.

Meteorology is not a science, they do not employ the scientific method in any form and consequently the vast majority people who claim to be climate scientist are clearly not scientist.

If someone mentions “consensus” then it needs to be pointed out that a consensus is by definition unscientific and that scientific advancement comes at the expenses of the consensus.

17 plus years and the “climate models” don’t match reality… Heck I have products that I helped design 17 plus years ago that are in the scrap heap now because better stuff came along. I have US Patents that have expired since they only last for 20 years,,,,

A scientist is anybody who doesn’t take other peoples’ word for things– who has to find out for him/herself — requires verification. Not too different from what used to be considered a real journalist.

LOL! I read some of the comments. Same old worn out bloviating Leftist pap. They can’t think for themselves, so must Appeal to Authority. Anyone questioning the cult leaders are told to shut up and stop watching Fox News.

The word “science” comes to us from the Latin “scientia” meaning “demonstrable knowledge.” In addition to “demonstrable knowledge,” “science” has the meaning of “the process that is operated by people calling themselves ‘scientists’.” The ambiguity of meaning lays open the possibility that a “scientist” participates in operating a process that produces no demonstrable knowledge. This is the case for the “scientists” of the consensus.

When QANTAS were recruiting pilots in 1964, they went to University of London, and sat a very day long intelligence tests. Ones that were also designed for engineers and brain surgeons. (To make sure the surgeon did not lose concentration over a long time, ie. takeoff or landing or long surgery). Engineers have a lot of similarities in analysis and are scientific in their approaches to a problem. You don’t need to operate as a scientist in climatology to know how to read data. Archaeologists and Palaeoanthropolists, all analyse the environment that was present when examining and analysing data or artifacts. These jokers are protecting their profession as if their opinion is based only on data collected by computer modelling, but depends on which discipline in science ones knowledge is focused. As if we were attempting an brain operation without a medical degree. But most of us know a bit of first aid. And their data will be the type that fits their hypothesis. And we know that some data has been cherry picked or even wrong to assume or project their results. That’s not science.

Some years ago a huge chunk of sea ice broke away in Antarctica. “Climate change!” some screamed. It did not prove a threat to shipping and Antarctica scientists said, ‘This was caused by another large lump of sea ice, colliding with this one. Not climate change, it happens all the time”
That ill fated ship that got stuck in pack ice, should have taken note. See we senior citizens have long memories, and the ones that stick most is the weather, ‘The great storm of …” Snow at the wrong time of year, ‘Heatwaves” drought, floods, and the idiots I have met? LOL

Robert JM:
“If you study the bible to figure out how the world is made does that make you a scientist?
By some definitions it would, which is why an exact definition is required to identify science from pseudoscience.”

How so? I can think of no way to test for magic. Matter and energy have properties that can be tested. Religious ideas generally don’t. Perhaps an anthropologist or historian can study the Bible in a meaningful scientific way to find out more about the culture and society of the time period, but it cannot be studied scientifically as a means of studying the physical world.

When the truth will out, those who have collectively and professionally been found wanting, I would say their scholarly achievements will be dashed. I suspect that they are worried about having to explain the grants they have received.

The demand that Baugues conform to “consensus science” is a clear indicator that his detractors at USA Today aren’t scientists – they’re politicians and opponents of free speech, and more than that, they’re opponents of real science. It hardly bears repeating that there is no such thing as “consensus” in science.

As for the “97 percent” – i.e., 75 of 77 individuals who aren’t even all scientists – they’re outnumbered 450 to 1 by the signers of the Oregon Petition alone.

A Scientist is a person who are willing to put forward a thesis or a theory using Theories of Science-methods AND who are prepared to have his/her work presented in a way for other Scientists to follow and repeat(in theory or practise) every step in the logic of the Scientist’s work from thesis, background, correct not corrected or compromised facts, to the “bitter end” the conclusions drawn by the Scientist from logic proven A to B, B to C all way to S to T.

Many persons, skilled and with all sorts of Academic titles/positions in debates miss that Real-time observations always are better than theories of Scholars. No Scholar can say that he or she has found anywhere near a correct conclusions if not every factors needed is put on the table to be tested in reality. Reality always wins over fictive models. That one is easy. Fictive models miss needed information somewhere in the line. Mostly due to using Circle Proof instead of proving that A always leads to B and so on. Those two, missed information and usage of Circle Proof, been used in every so called computer models by the alarmists. All facts and factors needed are to be analysed, not chosen or corrected data used as facts.

I know what a scientist isn’t – someone who withholds their data because they are afraid someone may find fault with their hypothesis is not a scientist (i.e. Mann, Jones). Someone who refuses to acknowledge the failure of their hypothesis when confronted with overwhelming evidence is likewise not a scientist (e.g. the IPCC’s rising confidence in their failing computer models). Why don’t they qualify as scientists? Because they aren’t practicing science.

If you can hang a diploma on the wall from an accredited institution of higher learning saying you have a BA or BS in some scientific field of inquiry, you have proof you are a scientist. That doesn’t mean you actually do research or analysis, or that you are any good at it. But you can call yourself a scientist.

What gets me riled up is when scientists, highly successful in one field, jump into a new unrelated area and we assume automatically these big names are able to make meaningful and significant contributions in the new landscape. Or worse, when they make statements regarding issues in their new field and people believe they are suddenly experts.

Maybe the veteran can contribute in the new field, but I would not assume a priori he can. Why would he be even as successful as a post doc? Is it his approach to problem solving? Or is it because he attracts and funds the talented postdocs who actually solve the problems? I have plenty of respect for the latter, because that is a critically important role. Someone has to keep in mind the big picture, guide efforts in one general direction, make sure work is published and grants are written (and politics played), and deal with chaos lurking in the lab.

One exceptional opportunity is when someone successful in one field is able to bring the knowledge of their previous area of study to bear on problems in their new area of inquiry. Nevertheless, there are no guarantees of success.

This is actually very good news indeed. Scientists are sceptical by definition. If you as a person believe in something to the exclusion of any other possibility – then you become an advocate not a scientist.

The original comment about global warming/frostbite was probably an off the cuff remark. Most sensible people would have had a wry smile and moved on.

But what this remark did was to act like a bait.

And that bait, however innocently laid out – caught some who profess to be “scientists” and want to be seen as scientists – but who are now advocates of a belief.

Jo/e public is not stupid – Jo/e public can now see what is happening here. And that is entirely thanks to the actions of the advocates – the believers.

The tables turn on such linguists since the scientific method itself disqualifies those who torture data in favor of a theory as being even called scientists instead of charlatan crooks. Most fields of science evict such rogues from professional society, and since climate “science” instead celebrates and rewards them, their whole field now disqualifies their claim to being a science at all.

These are not minor points, mere opinionated jabs, but are the deeply fundamental and defining criteria that separates and elevates science from all other endeavors.

After Willis’ simple plot of the Marcott 2013 input data that utterly falsified the blade of that new Harvard “super hockey stick,” one of the biggest nails of all was driven into the coffin of the hockey stick team cult operation. In infamy will their fame be forever converted into notoriety, dragging the now fully invested and committed progressive era of statism down with it, the temperature record itself becoming the loudest skeptical voice.

Lewandowsky’s latest two part paper now claims that greater uncertainty due to skeptical input is *mathematically* proven to result in greater climate disaster risk. It has reached preposterous levels of misdirection as such “scientists” who do not follow the scientific method any more than did Enron, are given fellowships by the Royal Society. The biggest loser for a century will be science itself, since us *correct* amateurs were attacked by every official scientific body that we reached out to for explanations of their support of corruption, and the public *knows* this. All the heads of academic departments will now suffer a legacy of being at the peak of their career during the biggest and most obvious fraud in human history, yet they supported it! Are they then scientists? No, they are not. They are fellow scammers in a plot to invoke energy rationing genocide in our era of abundance.

One doesn’t need a science degree to know the truth. Tim Flannery is by rights a palaeotologist, with some archaeological experience. His theories on mega-fauna extinction have been reviewed and contradicted. When they all died off, we weren’t hunting them to extinction but it coincides with a change from ice age to an interglacial. Those that were browsers died, those that were grazers actually grew smaller. Like the North American bison, there were bigger ones around once.

Thomas Edison was an engineer — you know, the kind that builds the world. Scientists are *supposed* to underpin the engineering, but engineers know to check their own bases (that’s the plural of “basis”, guys).

Even mathematics has the same dichotomy of theory vs practice. The theoretical is called “formalism” and is practiced by most mathematicians, it features the law of the “excluded middle”, that is, something is either true or it is false, there is no grey area in between. In opposition is the practical, called “constructivism”, which says that there is a valid middle area where something is neither true nor false. Schroedinger’s Cat falls into this nebulous area, where if you do not know the state of the cat, it cannot be held to be either one or the other, rather it is both. Back in university days I was a staunch constructivist and so fielded quite a bit of criticism from my professors, but the hallmark of constructivism is that for something to be demonstrated it must be constructed, and not simply indicated. Most mathematicians get their gravy from formalism and produce ridiculous truisms, but constructivism, much criticized, has had the last laugh because computation requires its rigor and rules.

I know my little essay here will be lost forever in the flood of comments, but it is a little marker that the schizophrenic behavior of science even extends to mathematics, where you would think it cannot be. Indeed, even number theory which builds its foundations on integers is in question, as the universe appears to operate on a logarithmic basis more so than discrete integers. Physical law is such a bitch.

Zombi, your idea is illogical, they are trying to put down those that have shown courage in putting up an alternative argument. Ferd, you are so right. Oh, LOL, has anyone practiced the Heil hitler salute recently.

In my foolish youth I would have said that a real scientist was someone who used the scientific method to address questions about the natural world. They might be cranky and vindictive (or ditzy and ineffectual, etc.) in their private lives, but when it came to their research, they were coldly logical and objective. Assumptions were always tested, experiments were designed to hit the weakest part of the hypothesis, data rigorously analyzed, and falsified hypotheses discarded. New hypotheses replaced old (ad hoc adjustments were not allowed) and, because the method was so robust, even when initial hypotheses were wrong, some truth about the natural world was eventually revealed. False scientists were those who couldn’t let go of gorgeous hypotheses, valued theory over data, or believed, irrevocably, that they knew the answer before they did any experiments.

Perhaps it was like that in the golden years (a fallacy of course) when scientists pursued knowledge as its own reward (along with prestige and honours). A modern scientist, however, pursues money designated for a particular purpose and designs experiments to prove the assumptions of whatever generous agencies (government, business, NGOs) provided the money.

Therefore, I think a better definition of a modern scientist would be something like this: “A scientist is someone that knows what is expected to be true and is able to publish proof of the hypothesis. A really good scientist is one who is able to generate a press release that magnifies the importance of their normative research by a large, but undefined number (‘undefined’ is required, since X x 0 = 0). The best scientist the world has ever seen is the one who can capture the essence of a field of ‘research’ and make it their own.” I think Dr Mann is one of the best scientists in the modern world.

Dave you are being sarcastic. Science is a precise and progressive methodology that is demonstrated by adequate study and research into a given discipline that provides adequate and provable data, that forms a hypothesis. That can be demonstrated by validation of the hypothesis by observations and experiment. Such as splitting the atom. Gee we got that right didn’t we to our chagrin.

The problem is peer reviewed hypothesis. If enough say, his scientific research is OK, then it is accepted and it is validated. One can’t validate a prediction though.

Science is a philosophy and not a bunch of university credentials and it is about the process of observation and falsification – it’s not about proving anything. Scientists are people, any people, who apply the scientific methodologies to learn more about the world by dispelling myths and falsehoods, learning or discovering things that are more ‘right’ than the previously assumed ‘right’. For example, the mass of an electron was determined at a point in time by a scientist. this mass was then found to be a little off by another scientist and different experiments determined a figure closer to the one we use today. This process continues forever in science.

Anyone can be a scientist too, from the mother at home who on hearing the oft cited blither that vinegar and bicarb soda when mixed make an excellent cleaning product does some reading and discovers that no, just because two things individually work well, when mixed they do not. This is science – and Karl Popper would be proud. Science is a skepticism based on rigorous testing.

On the flip side I know of desktop researchers and epidemiologists who have no grasp of the concept of falsification, no concept of causality differing from coincidence, yet they hold their science qualifications up as proof of themselves being scientists.

The man who once suggested that the profile of Africa (A) and South America (SA) somehow seem to be similar and when he cut out A and SA and offered them up to each other he theorised that they could have been joined at sometime in the past. This man was an amateur geologist. His theory was dismissed but eventually proven correct, in large part due to the US Navy mapping the floor of the oceans, sadly after his death. Many of the greatest scientific discoveries were made by “amatuers” who had no peers.

As for professionals in “climate science”, well, they are worce than amateurs, they are blantant liars on the taxpayers coin.

What do you call a person who does not create scientific experiments following the scientific method? Einstein was a mathematician- he never did one experiment. Other scientists proved his theories through experiments. I can make up a hundred theories a day, but I can’t make up data.

Yes, and they utilize their popular and positive image to the public. Al Gore must be right as he once was vice president. We trust our politicians don’t we (NOT!) If some appears better educated than you on a subject, you assume they are right. (NOT) I know when I went to university, my head tutor told me to read widely. ‘Data will change and expect the archaeological record, with all its gaps to be filled in one day by new discoveries’ Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology is a science too. But I don’t know of any weather prediction science? Do you?
Well I suppose one studies weather at a Meteorology college, or take one of those uncredited climate change diplomas that have suddenly popped up on the web.

You raise an important observation about the bashing from the rag: that using a “consensus” argument (argumentum ad populum) is unscientific because it it quite literally illogical.

The protagonist expressed an opinion based on experience and observation. The antagonists decried his opinion not because it was unscientific, but because, they claimed, he was himself not qualified to hold a valid “scientific” opinion, that ridiculous argument supported by a baseless claim that he was not a “scientist”, a claim easily proven false by any definition.

There are three clearly unscientific elements to this: the attack on the protagonist, the consensus claim and the rag’s definition of ‘a scientist’s.

Hypotheses’ are not theories.. Einstein’s theory of relativity, is a theory. Hypotheses are data related ideas demonstrated and presented in a scholarly methodology and process with references to prove their point and the extent of the research. Or by presenting a holistic experiment, ie. tree rings? That was a bad choice Mikie, as there are archaeologists that can challenge your methodology was flawed. But some hypotheses can be challenged, as nothing is absolute. Some can never be proven anyway. But can be proven wrong.

Albert Einstein was not a refrigeration expert and yet he worked with someone (I forget who) to make home based refrigerators safer due to the refrigerants used at that time (Ammonia I think. Rather ironic now as CFC’s and HCFC’s being banned, ammonia is now becoming more popular, again). They had a working solution but were beaten by technological advances where safer refridgerants (Freon I think) were used.

In the life sciences (immunology), I have personally observed real scientists by standard measure (academic and lab training, a PhD dissertation, accepted 1st author publications, grants) who would have been better described as technicians IMHO. They were skilled (or had been at one time) at the techniques needed to examine the questions. They could write. They could critically think about how their data and who it squared with a hypothesis. They were skeptical or single expt data. But many lack one key ingredient that I think has to make a successful scientist (like Einstein), they did not have that burning curiosity to really try to understand curious secondary observations or why an experiment might have failed to produce “expected results.”

Any operationla definition of succesful scientist has to include a burning curiosity about the field of their study. Otherwise it quickly just becomes a job and need to keep grant money flowing with data and boring publications few read.

@Roger Dewhurst:
“It might be more appropriate to ask what distinguishes the scientist from the engineer.”

I was always taught that there are two kinds of scientists theoretical scientists and applied scientists. Theoretical scientists are the ones who do research on leading edge topics. Applied scientists are engineers (all types) and architects, essentially. They certainly use scientific principles to design things – otherwise structures would fall down or equipment would fail. Or electrical power relay stations would blow up a lot.

Where do TV meteorologists fit into that? They aren’t doing research, but they are certainly scientists – I’d call them applied scientists.

Pointless debate – I am a scientist, but I also hold a PhD in “Engineering” from an Engineering Department – the lines are very blurred. However, a scientist is not someone who quotes what others are saying without undertaking sufficient inquiry to satisfy themselves that what others are saying is correct. Case in point – many “scientists” will carry on about the polar bear, without evenknowing that its linnean name is Ursus maritiumus – the sea bear. They have just been told that without sufficient ice the polar bear will drown.

What Defines A Scientist , for the AGW faithful the unquestioning support of ‘the cause ‘ no matter how bad your ideas or anti-science your approach. Dogma is all .
Like so much on this area , don’t think science, think religions or political fanatic , and you will understand how it works.

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and all that I suppose.

“Keith Baugues is not a scientist, but that didn’t stop him on a recent wintry day from expressing skepticism about global warming — something that is broadly accepted in the scientific community.” “Baugues studied engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology…..

——————-

“Rajendra Pachauri is not a scientist, but that didn’t stop him on a recent Australian heatwave from expressing support about projected global warming — something that is broadly accepted in the scientific community.” “Pachauri studied engineering at North Carolina State University…..

Al Gore is not a scientist. There are many other Warmists who are not scientists.

What’s this from 3 days ago? Here is the Emeritus Professor Les Woodcock and former NASA scientist.

Definitions should be absolute, but be careful which of the available choices you pick.

My idea of a hypothesis is something that is just a speculation (e.g. apples fall to the ground because the gods don’t like things that float in air) with no empirical evidence for it and no way to test it. After all, maybe the gods really don’t like things that float in air so they invented gravity, who’s to know?

A theory on the other hand may begin as an idle speculation but subsequently (in private, if the thinker is prudent) is elaborated to include a known or unknown mechanism, which can be tested by experiment and therefore is susceptible to falsification (like seeing whether 17years 8months worth of additional carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere does indeed raise average global temperature).

Einstein’s generalised theory fulfilled these requirements – indeed he explicitly said that light would bend around massive objects in space (so-called Einstein lensing) and if it didn’t his theory was wrong. Subsequently, Einstein lensing was found to be a physical fact, so he well and truly qualifies as a “scientist” (as if anyone ever seriously doubted it).

I really don’t know if Hans Popper would have approved of my concepts of hypothesis and theory, because I find his writings far too leaden to bother with. Anyway, my ideas on these matters work just fine for me.

One academic who was foretelling the importance of science in schools, described it as being not just a discipline based on experiments but is also needs a creative mind to think about and solve problems that have as yet not be solved. I think the AGW group mistakenly felt this should be creative bullshit, you can fool some people some of the time, but not all people all of the time.

In terms of Webster’s definition of a scientist as “a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems”, it is shown to be inaccurate by the fact that Einstein was a Patent Clerk when he wrote the Annus Mirabilis papers:

—————————–

In 1901, the year he gained his diploma, he acquired Swiss citizenship and, as he was unable to find a teaching post, he accepted a position as technical assistant in the Swiss Patent Office. In 1905 he obtained his doctor’s degree.

So now using the definition of a scientist following the scientific method we must conclude, that AGW as per IPCC’s conclusion of for most of the warming since 1950 being man made, has been falsified? Observations V Projections? 17+ years of surface temperature standstill? Would 20 years do it? No?

Talking of qualifications, or lack there of, in a given field. Einstein was not a refrigeration engineer however, worked with someone (I forget who) to improve the safety of the domestic refrigerator which was dominated by ammonia as the refrigerant. They actually developed a working design, which was safer. Unfortunately, freon became the dominant refrigerant rendering their efforts redundant. I don’t think either of them lost any sleep over progress. And now, after such progress, CFC’s and HCFC’s are being banned and ammonia is being favoured! One step forward, two steps back!

“Just the facts” highlights the fact that Einstein was a clerk when he published key papers in 1905. A similar, and relevant case is James Croll, of Croll – Milankovich cycle fame. He educated himself as a youth by getting a job as a janitor at the university library. When he began writing about the link between ice ages and variations in earth orbit, he was a caretaker at Anderson College museum.

Some Warmists have pointed out to me that such and such a person is an astrophysicist. I point out that the Father of modern day global warming, Dr. James Hansen, studied physics and astronomy and I assume is also an astrophysicist.

NASAHansen was trained in physics and astronomy in James Van Allen’s space science program at the University of Iowa, receiving his bachelor’s degree with highest distinction in physics and mathematics, master’s degree in astronomy, and Ph.D. in physics in 1967. Except for 1969, when he was a National Science Foundation post-doctoral student at the Leiden Observatory in Holland, Hansen spent his professional career at GISS. Hansen was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics, University of Kyoto and Department of Astronomy, Tokyo University, Japan from 1965-1966.

In his early research, Hansen used telescopic observations of Venus to extract detailed information on the physical properties of the cloud and haze particles that veil Venus. Since the mid-1970s, he has focused on studies and computer simulations of Earth’s climate, working to understand the climate system and human impacts on global climate. Hansen’s testimony before Congress in 1988 helped to raise the broad public awareness of the global climate change as an important issue for us all.http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20130402/

Isn’t it interesting that if you disagree with a scientific idea, you are attacked for not being a scientist, and even if you are one, you’re criticized for not being a *specific* kind of scientist? That takes care of at least 80% of objections. The rest can be dismissed as ‘out of touch’ or whatever.

But if you agree with a scientific idea, then any requirement for qualification is waived, as if… by magic.

Oh and BTW, skepticism is merely one aspect of doing science and does not define science. Other fields within and outside philosophy also have skepticism as an aspect.

Skepticism is not in any way near the top of the list of desirable qualities necessary for doing good science. It’s on the list though, that’s for sure.

About a year ago, the sceptic blog run by Jo Nova, asked how many readers were scientists or engineers and in what field. Many hundreds of people responded. I suspect if WUWT did the same it would be many thousands, especially if it was a stand alone post one day.

In my opinion, geologists know the most about climate and how it works in a historical sense.

Geologists – with the obvious exception of government ones, where there are continuing employment considerations – are the most sceptical group on the planet. I am a geologist and I know of no geologist who believes in alarmist CAGW theory.

A scientist is not someone who ‘works as a scientist’, rather someone who thinks acts and experiments like a scientist.

Children who test the frequency of seed germination under different conditions with their primary school teacher are scientists. They posed a question, designed some experiments, carried them out and interpreted them. If they say that results obtained in NYC automatically transpose to identical results in Patagonia then maybe they are being naive, unless their school has a link to a school in Patagonia and they shared their results which were identical, albeit 6 months or so apart.

Farmers who design- and carry out experiments to test the effect of certain composts, mulches, additives or fertilisers are behaving like scientists. They may not have a BSc, but they are doing what scientists do in their own particular field.

Whilst (a) degree(s) in science may indicate an exposure to scientific information and, in some cases, 3 – 5 years practice of experimental science, the test of whether someone is a scientist or not is how they respond in situations of controversy.

The reality is that science almost always collides with politics in the most heated arenas of controversy and hence, the scientists who refuse to engage politically may end up like the Shakers, politically pure but on the way to extinction.

“Either support consensus science or please keep your opinions to yourself. The rest of us are embarrassed by your unwillingness to accept what is happening,” one worker wrote.

Well that’s one thing that DOES NOT define a scientist, conformation to orthodoxy has nothing to do with science. So Keith Baugues scores having enough brains to put orthodoxy to one side and form an objective opinion.

So according to this “worker” scientific opinions are only to be expressed when they reinforce the orthodoxy viewpoint. I guess that’s why whoever it is, is a “worker” at Indiana Department of Environmental Management, and not a scientist.

Below are some notable people who were not ‘scientists’ or not credentialed at the time they made their discoveries, inventions etc. according to the USA Today article. They must realise that today’s scientists are Standing On The Shoulders Of Giants.

“Dominance may initially be established by fighting, or simply by threatening displays or interchanges. Once established, however, dominance is usually maintained by agonistic (competitive) behaviours with aggression considerably reduced or sometimes absent. In the maintenance of dominance relationships, the behaviour of the sub-dominant animal is critical. If a dominant animal perceives its status is being threatened, it will likely threaten the sub-dominant individual.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_%28ethology%29

In the language of monarchy to make yourself king you have to adopt a narrative that makes others common ie a language designed to belittle and degrade and to trick the person into thinking they are lower not equal.e.g. ‘know your place’

In science the data and method are king not people [even if they have a string of successes does not disqualify them from making errors]. Using dominance narrative against people means something else is going on. Which is why they do not accept the role of the skeptic when [H0: no wolf] is present and instead of calling them by their correct term in science they use other more colourful emotional words of the ‘monarchy’ narrative and must describe them as ‘illegitimate’.

One of the leading post war- astronomers never went to university, although in later years he was granted an Honorary Ph. D.
Dyring the war the late Sir Patrick Moore turned down a place at Cambridge and lied about his age to join the RAF, serving as a navigator with Bomber Command and rising to the rank of Flight Lieutenant. After the war he turned down a grant to study at Cambridge and taught for a time at a prep school but his interest in astronomy came to dominate his life. He built his own telescope in the garden of his Sussex home and began to observe the moon. The detailed maps of the moon’s surface that he produced during this time were used by Nasa as part of the preparations for the moon landing.
Buzz Aldrin, the pilot on the Apollo 11 moon landing, paid him this tribute in a BBC interview in 2009. “Astronomy has grown in leaps and bounds and it’s people like Patrick who have been able to put it into perspective so that ordinary people understand the enormity of the universe.”
The Royal Society made Moore an Honorary Fellow.
Websters would certainly not have called him a “scientist”, which goes to show how unreliable is that dictionary.
As for those who claim that engineers are not scientists it is worth noting that the Generalised Hurst Exponent, which is widely used as a measure of the long-term memory of a time series,
was so named by Mandelbrot when he realised the important role that these exponents, first discovered by Hurst, could play in fractal geometry. Hurst’s papers were originally published in Civil Engineering journals, and as a Hydrologist he was known as an engineer not as a physicist.
When, after the Suez affair, the British were expelled from Egypt, Hurst’s importance, as the world’s leading Nilologist, was such that Nasser invited him to return within weeks of the expulsion.

DR wrote; ‘Anyone questioning the cult leaders are told to shut up and stop watching Fox News’
With respect, the LAST TV feed anyone should watch for NEWS are channels like Fox, Chicken Noodle News and the BEEB.

My reccomendation is RT for informed opinions on world matters or for mostly unbiased factual; stick to first person feeds like Reuters.

And for detailed. ‘both sides of the coin’ opinion on give subjects, excellent blogs like this one!

The Inductive Method of Science (Gerald Holton, 1996).
1. Draw tentative hypothesis from experimental results
2. Refine hypothesis by making analogies with math or physics
3. Make predictions and draw logical conclusions that are
structured for experimental analysis
4. Run the experiment or check against known observations
5. If the observations or experimental results fit the hypothesis,
then the hypothesis is universally valid.
[ 6. If not universally valid, go back to step 1. ]

Anyone, including Einstein, Edison, Watts, Monckton, or even YOU
are a “scientist”, if following the “scientific method” as per G. Holton.

Anyone can read anyone else’s hypothesis,
and making informed comment, correspond
with the authors of that hypothesis. Should a
valid point be made which is accepted by the
authors, and indeed should the hypothesis be
altered as a result of that, then it does not matter
one jot, as to the so called “scientific credentials”
of the examiner and correspondent,

“scientific credentials” you will all realise, are mere
pieces of paper, signifying that the nominee has
“passed” some examination or other whose questions
are set by some other individuals, with reference to
supposed “known facts” at the time of the examination.

Known facts change over time, as we gather more
evidence about the physical universe, and its observable
and measurable effects on the biosphere, in which we live.
Measurement instruments and techniques change over
time, as do analytical processes, hence what was known
when an “accredited scientist” passed their examinations
may not even be relevant today. A so called “Amatuer”
or “Autodidact” scientist may well be better informed
about the facts and evidence that are known today,

The Scientific Method is the thing, and sadly, lately,
not very many “scientists” have been using it. They
prefer to use fixed dogma, as though what was in their
examination syllabus all those years (decades?) ago
had never changed, and never will. New evidence is
never seen by those blinkered guys (and gals).

Here in the “information age” with the powerful personal PC,
and computing in the cloud, with the Android & iPhone …..

WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY AT OUR FINGERTIPS

WE CAN ALL BE SCIENTISTS NOW, IF WE WANT TO !

codicil – AL GORE will NEVER be a scientist,
because that Dogmatist will NEVER
use the Scientific Method.

This is an example of the “No true Scotsman” logical fallacy.
Person A: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his oatmeal.”
Person B: “I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my oatmeal.”
Person A: “Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his oatmeal, therefore you cannot be a true Scotsman.”

The Daily Mail has a story this morning of how the IPCC report was ‘sexed up’ to create alarm. For example, the summary for policy makers now says “Climate change is projected to increase displacement of people because of extreme weather” – The original report explicitly contradicts this saying “Current alarmist predictions of massive flows of environmental migrants are not supported by past experiences of responses to droughts and extreme weather events”.

Sexed up Summary : “Climate change will increase risks of violent conflicts”
Original report says the opposite : “ Research does not conclude that there is a strong positive relationship between warming and armed conflict…wars may well be triggered not by global warming but by measures that try to limit it”

Isn’t it interesting that if you disagree with a scientific idea, you are attacked for not being a scientist, and even if you are one, you’re criticized for not being a *specific* kind of scientist? That takes care of at least 80% of objections. The rest can be dismissed as ‘out of touch’ or whatever.

But if you agree with a scientific idea, then any requirement for qualification is waived, as if… by magic.

Exactly. :D

In addition. many people I have spoken to who believe CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic global warming initially claim things like “it’s simple physics” and/or “the evidence is clear and all around us”. In other words, they claim the evidence for catastrophic global warming is allegedly so obvious that you don’t need any scientific training to know it’s true.

Yet, as soon as I start to point out my scientific criticisms with this apparent evidence, they invariably start backpedalling and telling me that they’re not a climate scientist, so they don’t really know… “but 97% of scientists say…” – that is they move the goalposts from “it’s simple science” to “well, scientists say”… ;)

Speaking of which, as others have pointed out here, that “97%” meme is just so bizarre! We wrote an essay on our Global Warming Solved blog a while back providing examples of climate researchers across the spectrum from believing “global warming” is almost entirely a man-made crisis to those who believe it is almost entirely a natural process. All of our examples would probably fall into “the 97%” of scientists who believe that (a) it is warmer now than during the late 19th century and (b) human activity can influence climate (e.g., urbanization bias). Yet, many of these researchers would be considered “climate deniers” by most people quoting the alleged “97%” statistic! It’s crazy.

In case any of you are interested, our essay is here – some of you might have seen it already, cause I mentioned it on an earlier thread, but if you’re interested in the whole “scientific consensus” issue, we include some nice video clips from a wide range of perspectives – you might like some of them!

I’ve actually been watching skeptic blogs hoping someone would step in on the ruthless public beating that Pielke has received over all this, but everyone has been silent.

I was actually going to post a comment on the 538 blog, but they have a Facebook commenting system, which I found too awkward, and anyway most of the debate is just a rehash of the feud which has being going on for more than a decade between researchers like Trenberth, Emmanuel, Mann who are convinced CO2 is changing hurricane trends and researchers like Pielke Jr., Landsea, Maue who point to the lack of reliable evidence for that theory in the actual data.

“I know how to identify the non-scientists in this debate, anyone who calls the gas CO2 “Carbon”.”

That is somewhat annoying, isn’t it? Anyway, I will bet you that most people would not know what is being referred to in terms such as Carbon Tax, Carbon Trading, Carbon Emissions, etc. It’s just a parroted buzzword.

Great post, with some very good contributions, especially the link above to the Yorkshire Evening post.
In Central London, on Wellbeck Street is a plaque to Thomas Young, which simply says ” Man of Science”. Young’s Modulus of Elasticity is used daily throughout the world in the design of structures.
I’ve thought of writing to English Heritage to see if they would be prepared to put a plaque on one of the many top hotels where your very own Michael Mann has stayed.
” Mann of Nonsense”

Having earned a degree in engineering (a BASc otherwise known and a Bachelor of Applied Science) and having spent many hours in the same labs as chemists and physicists, I find the suggestion that engineers are somehow excluded from being scientist absurd. I have known many engineers that use the scientific method.and are experts in things like pharmacological research, as well as a few people without any science degrees that perform medical research using the scientific method (one in particular has a history degree but is an acclaimed medical researcher). So the desire to restrict credibility in a subject like climate to the few deemed to be climate scientists actually proves what all of us in law know (yes I have a law degree as well, but don’t hold that against me), that is, that deeming is a legal fiction, as I can say that the Toronto Maple Leafs are deemed to be the finest hockey team of all time.
I am certainly not a scientist, but I am well enough versed in science that I can smell a barnyard as well as any other well informed person.

When I say “WE”, I mean, we of a like mind.
That is to say, those of us with an inquiring mind,
who strive to find the truth, to find an explanation
for what we see, in the World and Universe around us.

Of necessity, such people will have the intellect to
understand rational argument and basic maths
and general school level science. That is all that
is required really to understand the hypotheses
around the so called science of climate-change.

All this is especially true, if you are reading this now
in this particular internet blog, since it is indeed …….
“The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change”

I don’t imagine that we shall find very many
deadheaded befuddled brains reading this
stuff in here. Maybe those unfortunates will
not, I concede, be able to be scientists in
any real sense.

I am seeing https now on the right side posts and both Firefox and Explorer refuse to open the pages.

My Firefox says:

This Connection is Untrusted

You have asked Firefox to connect
securely to wattsupwiththat.com, but we can’t confirm that your connection is secure.
Normally, when you try to connect securely,
sites will present trusted identification to prove that you are
going to the right place. However, this site’s identity can’t be verified.

My Explorer says:

There is a problem with this website’s security certificate.

The security certificate presented by this website was issued for a different website’s address.

Security certificate problems may indicate an attempt to fool you or intercept any data you send to the server.

We recommend that you close this webpage and do not continue to this website.

The difference between scientists and engineers if that scientists tend to be data gatherers and engineers tend to be analysts. Some of the better scientists usually have research assistants to gather the data and they (the scientists) do the analysis. Maybe these are guys who got their professions kind of mixed up. The vast majority of scientists are unfortunately just gatherers of data which they think they can analyze but dismally fail. Albert Einstein was more of a mathematician than a scientist since he could visualize a concept using maths , which is a type of analysis. As someone above pointed out he never got to do the lab work to prove his theories.

The interesting thing about the data gatherers is that they tend to gather all this data and come to a wrong conclusion because they do not have the right data. They may have mixed data which of course will give incorrect analysis. They may have the correct data but misapply it. However Climate Scientists (cough cough) commit the cardinal sin of changing data to suit themselves to come to a predetermined result. They are charlatans not scientists.

I think of a scientist as a person who wants to find the truth, no matter what it is. A scientist is not closed minded, he or she does not accept a belief without verifiable proof and then is willing to change a belief if the proof changes due to improved understanding or if he discovers the proof is faulty. A scientist does not attempt to find evidence to support his belief, rather he bases his belief around the evidence. A scientist does not attempt to silence someone who believes differently, rather he listens and debates with an open mind considering he may be in the wrong as much as the other person is. A title does not define a scientist. Neither does the employer. Being a scientist does not preclude one from being religious, indeed many of the great scientists have been and still are religious. But a scientist knows how to separate faith from study. Being a scientist also does not preclude a person from having a different opinion, but a scientist never ever denigrates those that do because he respects people.

For example: A scientist would not insult and attempt to discredit another scientist who did not believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming or evolution. These are two areas where it takes a brave scientist to say he does not believe in. But those who believe in those theories should not insult and attempt to discredit a person who does not believe in those theories, rather a scientist will debate with an open mind and look at the evidence presented. Keep in mind that I am using this as an example and these are not the only two areas where alternative viewpoints are silenced instead of debated.

Be watchful out there. These thugs are trying to ‘trademark’ the very word ‘science’ to mean only one thing in matters of climate and global warming. If you make jokes like the one Mr. Baugues attempted, you will be labeled ‘anti-science’ very quickly. We have political parties in Canada who are very much corralling the word to their own purposes. They did it with the term ‘climate change’ and they will do it with the word ‘science’, I have no doubt.

> It might be more appropriate to ask what distinguishes the scientist from the engineer.

My definitions are “A scientist work to create tools that describe how things work, an engineer uses those tools to create new systems.”

Further, “A Golden Era” is when you can’t distinguish the two.” For example, I define the years ca. 1960-1985 as the Golden Era of Computer Science. We went from computers with vacuum tubes and dollar a byte memory (after core memory got established) to LSI silicon based computing. People building time sharing systems and computer networks had to create the tools for things like data structures, queuing theory, etc to create the systems that implemented those.

I’m glad to have been deeply involved with most of that era, mostly since 1968, but I programed a drum based process control computer in 1962 that my father designed. Since 1985, it’s mostly been faster, smaller, cheaper.

Genetic Engineering is in its Golden Era, but one that will last longer than computing’s. It hasn’t really arrived yet. It will when you can sit down with a catalog and look for a gene for a enzyme in a step in sugar metabolism and have a dozen choices ranging from very high performance within 5 degrees of where it denatures to lower performance that works from 0-100°

We’re in the Golden Era of solar physics, but it doesn’t have as big a system building aspect to it.

This is a rather silly discussion, since it all comes down to the Climatists dismissing anyone who disagrees with them as “not a scientist,” or “not a real scientist,” or “not a climate scientist.” Said Climatists are most often not even close to doing any science themselves, being bureaucratic, media, or academic toadies. It has nothing to do with qualifications, activities, methods, mindset, or anything else except whether you profess blind obeisance to the Gospel of Climate Change. Patrick Hadley summed it up nicely above:

patrickhadley says:
April 6, 2014 at 3:14 am
This is an example of the “No true Scotsman” logical fallacy.
Person A: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his oatmeal.”
Person B: “I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my oatmeal.”
Person A: “Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his oatmeal, therefore you cannot be a true Scotsman.”

Obviously anyone who investigates Nature with an open mind, using the Scientific Method, can call himself a ‘scientist’, no matter what the True Believers and Useful Idiots of the Climatist religion say. The trick is not to let them get to you. Willis Eschenbach is very good at that: follow his example.

By this USA TOdaystandard, who else is not a scientist?
Well, let’s look at the IPCC:
Rajendra K. Pachauri, Ph.D., was elected the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in April 2002 and reelected by acclamation in 2008. The IPCC was established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988.
His PhD is in engineering.
Off with him, then.
Oh, yeah: he supports climate alarmism.
Bloated insurance premiums are not the only cost the climate concerned have imposed on us. The climate obsessed also think we have too much free speech.

Nor by mine. Edison was an inventor and an industrialist. He was much more interested in building, new useful things than in understanding the science or even using its new tools. That was one of the reasons Nicola Tesla’s employment with Edison was only six months.

His sole contribution to science is called the “Edison Effect,” the observation that a current could flow in one direction between a filament in a light bulb and an unheated metal plate within the light. It wasn’t until John Flemming and Le De Forest developed it in to the vacuum tube (or valve) that opened the way for the radio era.

BTW, all that wasn’t very long ago – Thomas Edison’s eldest daughter, Marion Oser, was my grandmother’s next door neighbor and best friend. Aunt Marion, as my father and I called her, gave me my first books on Edison when I was in grade school.

Most of you seem to miss the point, this isn’t about who is or is not a scientist, it is about a political mob demanding full allegiance to whatever they say or else. It is about thought police demanding people shut up or be fired. And it isn’t happening just in AGW it is ubiquitous. The academic, media, and political “elite” are totalitarian and everyone better wake up to this fact pretty darned quick.

Do you study the natural world >b>and use the scientific method? If so, you are a scientist.
Do you pretend to study the scientific world to get paid by supporting an agenda so as to acquire grant money, while refusing to release your code and data, so as to cover up your cherypicking and other deviations from the scientific method? You are not a scientist. In fact, what you are habitulally doing is, at best described as “grand theft by means of manupulation”. Throw in “conspiricy” if you do it with others who do similar things.

Science is not anything a scientist does. Science is science that anyone does.

How do I regard Willis? He is what used to be referred to as a “citizen scientist” (of whom Jefferson or Franklin were among the foremost exponents). He’s also an engineer, which makes him a mathematician, and a practical one at that. Not afraid to be wrong. Not afraid to ask questions.

Sorry wrong formatting in my last post.
My Webster’d Third New International Dictionary and Seven Language Dictionary from 1966 puts it a little different than the Popular Technology.

“one learned in science and especially natural science: a scientific investigator. (what distinguished the scientist is his ability to state problems, to frame questions, so that the technician can make the machines yield facts that are significant – W. A. L. Johnson)”

The practical distinction between a scientist and an engineer is easily understood by this mildly amusing joke:

A scientist and an engineer enter a room. At the other end of the room is a beautiful woman in lingerie lying on a bed with a “come hither” look in her eyes. A voice over a loudspeaker informs them that for every minute that passes, they may close exactly half the distance to the woman. The scientist says, “I won’t do it” and turns around to leave. The engineer says, “Okay, I’ll do it.” The scientist turns to the engineer and says, “Don’t realize that you will never actually reach her?” The engineer says, “yes, but I’ll get close enough for all practical purposes.”

Saying that somebody’s argument should be ignored because of the lack of a Ph.D., is a confession that you, personally, don’t understand the issues.

Unfortunately, the answer to that is (words to the effect that) yes, they freely admit they do not understand the issue. They certainly will not admit any possibility that we might understand the issue. (And falsifiability dictates that maybe we don’t.)

This is then followed up, by some form or other of appeal to authority.

The problem here is that in science, you can’t do that, but in policy matters, we devolve to the judgment of experts all the time. And if there is a better way to do it, I certainly never heard of it. But policymakers are playing in real time, and that ain’t easy.

So there is an appraisal, as accurate and balanced as I can figure out.

I’d say “follow the pea”, but the correct answer to that would be “how many”?

We are dealing with mass hysteria here. Climatology is the rationalisation and cover. Looking into the climate to understand the hysteria is like looking in the garden for a key lost in the basement on the grounds that there is more light in the garden. The Leqwandowsky debacle proves the point.

“Galileo was skeptical of the geocentric theory of the solar system and he ended up in prison. Thankfully, we have progressed so much more today in science. (/very dry sarc) …”

I get your point, but I’m skeptical that Galileo was ever put in prison. Because, he wasn’t. He was put under house arrest, which is where he did all his work anyway. In fact, his “imprisonment” was under such exceedingly generous terms it barely mattered. He was still allowed to work, to communicate with other scientists, and to attend Mass everyday which he did to the very end of his life. Should it come to that (it won’t) for us “Climate Deniers,” you’d best hope for such generous terms.

The Galileo Affair was a modest little conflict blown into a tempest by Enlightenment spin doctors who wanted to paint religion as the enemy of science. It involved Church Politics, envy among scientists, historical context, as well as Galileo’s monumental ego and repeated small dishonesties (he did not invent the telescope, he probably did not perform the experiment of dropping balls of different weight from the Tower of Pisa.) Incidentally, it should be pointed out that at no time was he able to give a slam dunk proof of Heliocentrism (and he was just dead wrong about the nature of comets and the tides). That had to wait until parallax was demonstrated 130 years later. Galileo overreached (on many occasions), went out of his way to offend his friends in positions of power, and frankly deserved his slap on the wrist, not for his belief that Copernicus was right, but for being an ass.

Even “Darwin’s Bulldog” Thomas Huxley, examining the case, concluded, “The Church had the best of it.”

I once interviewed a lady who had a PHD in “Environmental Sciences” for a position managing an environmental cleanup project of indutrial wastes. Found out she had no real math, chemistry, physics or statistics to speak of. She had lots of courses in tree planting, horseback riding and bird watching. Anyone can obtain a PHD if they have the time and money.

Whatever one wants to designate as necessary conditions for being a “scientist”, it must include skepticism and independent thinking along with quantitative methods and courses appropriate to the discipline in which they are attempting to operate if they are not to be simply an analyst of other people’s ideas.

“Jim G says:
April 6, 2014 at 8:28 am
I once interviewed a lady who had a PHD in “Environmental Sciences” for a position managing an environmental cleanup project of indutrial wastes. Found out she had no real math, chemistry, physics or statistics to speak of. She had lots of courses in tree planting, horseback riding and bird watching …”

Michael Jankowski says:
April 5, 2014 at 8:42 pm
Holy hell. Are we going to have something akin to the Spanish Inquisition now for the unfaithful?

Well, I suppose that it’s inevitable that sooner or later someone’s going to mention the Spanish Inquisition, especially someone who obviously knows very little about it. An Inquisition “for the unfaithful”? Go and do some reading on what the Inquisition was really all about and THEN you might, just, be in a position to make some intelligent comment about it.

The Spanish inquisition or the Catholic Crusades…. Both were to force people who did not believe into submission. BY Force… its coming too, one must simply look at how many of those cultists want to shoot deniers or imprison them…. Some of the most prominent Sooth-Sayers of AGW are already advocating it.

… The problem here is that in science, you can’t do that, but in policy matters, we devolve to the judgment of experts all the time. And if there is a better way to do it, I certainly never heard of it. But policymakers are playing in real time, and that ain’t easy. …

Politicians choose their experts depending on the politicians’ chosen policy direction. Politicians respond to political pressure. Our battle is for the hearts and minds of the public. When there is massive public pressure to end the “Global Warming – government” complex (apologies to Ike), then it will be ended. The Democrats will back off if they think they will lose more votes than they will gain by sticking with CAGW. (as always, they will talk out of both sides of their mouths and try to keep both sets of voters)

Alba,
I take your point about the Inquisition, but there’s no reason to defensive and snarky about it. For one thing, it’s uncharitable. A lot of the people who post here are serious researchers and scientists, who probably have a hard enough time just keeping up with the literature in their field as well as jousting with these idiots who think computer models are more real than Reality.

This is an invaluable website because of that. I would prefer a good science website with scientist commenters who are also well-versed in recent advances in historical understanding. But if I can’t, I’d rather they continue be good and honest scientists, even if they have gotten their history from Voltaire, Washington Irving, Thomas Dewey – or even Stephen Hawking, who is our greatest living scientist, but a rubbish historian.

T-Bird says:
April 6, 2014 at 8:28 am
“Galileo was skeptical of the geocentric theory of the solar system and he ended up in prison. Thankfully, we have progressed so much more today in science. (/very dry sarc) …”

I get your point, but I’m skeptical that Galileo was ever put in prison. ….

——————————————–

Excellent summary. I Understand that Galileo also obstinately asserted that the Sun sat fix and immovable at the center of the Solar system, and/or Universe.

My understanding is that a big part of his troubles were caused by his insistence that certain hypotheses were “facts”, although not yet proven, which at the same time seemed to contradict what was written in the Bible.

I once had a CAGW by CO2 proponent tell me that Galileo was tortured and executed by the Church. lol

Laymen scientists are to be respected also. Not booklearned but, still know water runs downhill.

When they have proof of their predictions of doom that can be defended, I might listen. Until then, I wish to rant and rave against this evil that plagues the earth currently known as (Climate something or other).

Going out back now to test a few laws of thermodynamics. Charcoal smoker vs. 2 15 lb. turkeys. I think I know who’s going to win. :-)

Whenever I hear the word “scientist” I think Ph.D. in science (not engineering). Anyone else is not a “scientist”. To be a “scientist” you have to be recognized within the scientific establishment. After all that’s why they create all these ridiculous societies and then have secret meetings.

Willis isn’t a scientist. He’s just really smart. There is a big difference between being a scientist and being really smart. Just ask Michael Mann. He’s a scientist.

When I hear the word “scientist” (which is not a publicly owned word) I think about John Harrison, the clock-maker man of little formal education who solved the longitude problem in navigation and was rejected the cash prize by the scientific establishment (the Board of Longitude). They eventually caved in (after the King intervened).

Which leads to an even more interesting question. What defines a King?

There is the ‘scientific method’, which is a way of addressing a problem or gaining new knowledge. It involves considering known (or believed) facts, making a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis and then disseminating the results so that others can confirm the validity, or otherwise, of your findings. It is often used to gather knowledge about natural phenomena which are believed to display certain patterns termed ‘laws’. People can have disagreements in detail about how the method should work, but that does not mean that there is no such method…

During our lives, most of us will use the scientific method, or some variation thereof, at some point. We may wish to solve problems as simple as ‘Why do I keep loosing my keys?’. When we use this method we are ‘acting scientifically’ – using the method. So all of us can be ‘scientists’, and are, at various times, if you accept this definition.

Some of us spend our lives trying to solve problems in natural philosophy, and are paid to do this. They are paid by government or big companies who have specific ‘natural’ problems – the pharmaceutical, aviation and energy companies, for example. These people expect to use the scientific method frequently, and may get very good at it. Or maybe not. Certainly they have ready access to methods of disseminating their findings. The newspapers call these people ‘scientists’. I call them ‘researchers’. They might usually be expected to have an informed knowledge of how things behave in their area of research.

But this informed knowledge does not mean they are always right, does not mean that others cannot question their findings or beliefs, and does not mean that they alone should be called ‘scientists’…

Sera says:
April 5, 2014 at 11:09 pm
I can make up a hundred theories a day, but I can’t make up data.

Well you are obviously not a climate scientist because they do that almost every day.
——-
Do you need formal training to be a mechanic? Some of the best mechanics I have ever known were entirely self taught. Yet today we see the same love of formal credentials even in a common career like auto mechanics where it is difficult to get a job if you don’t have half a dozen formal certifications. Those certifications do not in any way guarantee you have common sense, mechanical aptitude, are observant, prone to take unsafe short cuts when working on people’s cars, or simply push parts until you accidentally fix the problem never knowing you had no clue about what was wrong in the first place.

Science is the same, it is the practice of a method not a title or a rank.

A 9 year old who systematically figures out how to take a toy apart is a scientist, if he used the scientific method.

“I wonder if this is will pop off if I pry here?” Tries to pry off the cover (conducts experiment). No that does not work (test failed) must be another way to get this thing apart (throws out old hypothesis). Oh look 2 tiny screws under this cover (makes new observations). I wonder if those hold it together?(formulates new hypothesis). Formulates new test plan (takes screws out to test hypothesis) … cover comes off after screws removed. Eureka battery covers on this toy are held in place by two small screws under the rear panel.

We have become a society in love with certifications and with little regard for actual performance. Some of the dumbest people I have ever met (speaking practical application of knowledge) have been people who hold advanced degrees. They learned more and more about less and less until they knew a whole lot about nothing, yet had no concept of practical application of all the knowledge they had nor did they have any concept of the limitations and uncertainties inherent in that knowledge.

@Alba 8:45.
The mass hysteria is the same.
Faithful? Unfaithful?
Purely in the eyes of those with the power.
Persons exterminated by the cause rarely leave a record of their side of the story.
Kangaroo courts flourish in days of mass hysteria.
Canada has these Human Rights Commissions, which short of execution are no different from religious inquisitions.
Truth is not a defence?.
So sayeth our supreme court, hate speech is criminal even when true and accurate.
However, nice snark.

Although I have my own ideas about what constitutes a “scientist,” it strikes me as interesting that the highest position in the popular pantheon is occupied by “rocket scientists”–who are really engineers.

“Chris B says:
April 6, 2014 at 9:13 am
… Excellent summary. I Understand that Galileo also obstinately asserted that the Sun sat fix and immovable at the center of the Solar system, and/or Universe.”

He also thought, a la Aristotle and Ptolemy, that planetary orbits were perfectly circular, which any Jesuit astronomer of the day knew, by mere observation, was false. Only by a great deal of historical distortion can you really work Galileo into a Martyr for Science.

As commie bob notes, one of the greatest scientists of our day, Freeman Dyson does not have a PhD, indeed, if I remember correctly, he doesn’t even have a BSc. He’s quite proud to sign himself Freeman Dyson MA (Maths).

“Back in 1996 Danish physicists suggested that cosmic rays, energetic particles from space, are important in the formation of clouds. Since then, experiments in Copenhagen and elsewhere have demonstrated that cosmic rays actually help small clusters of molecules to form. But the cosmic-ray/cloud hypothesis seemed to run into a problem when numerical simulations of the prevailing chemical theory pointed to a failure of growth.” (But read on…)

Scientists are men who are madly in love with a theory and confirm it. Theories are what Bacon, the founder of empirical science, quaintly (but it turns out correctly) termed “idols.” Theories are idols and all men come under the sway and control of their own assumptions and theory.

Popper showed that the only way out is critical discussion, open society, and falsifiability.

The current progressives wish to define out of existence all those with views that differ from their own. Consequently, we must define journalists as those with certain narrow perspectives and experiences, scientists with proper views on topics such as climate science, tolerance with specific views on social subjects such as gay marriage and social justice. All other views must be stricken from the public forum. Jonah Goldberg calls this Liberal Fascism. Thus, if you can be defined out of existence we no longer need to consider your views.
Ben

Note: Upon a request from Anthony I have struck-through the reference to PopularTechnology.net as “smear” site in the article above. I thought this to be a factual label, in that PopularTechnology.net stated that:

which I do not believe to be a fair characterization of Willis’ actions.

However, in deference to our host, the label of “smear” has been struck-through in the article. If anyone disagrees with the original label of PopularTechnology.net, or anything else I post, they are encouraged to do so in comments, as my goal is to present only the facts.

:Steve from Rockwood says:
April 6, 2014 at 9:49 am
….
When I hear the word “scientist” (which is not a publicly owned word) I think about John Harrison, the clock-maker man of little formal education who solved the longitude problem in navigation and was rejected the cash prize by the scientific establishment (the Board of Longitude). They eventually caved in (after the King intervened).

Which leads to an even more interesting question. What defines a King?”

The King who intervened was George III, King during the American Revolution.

For the alarmist zealots complaining that Keith Baugues is not a scientist, a scientist is someone with no sense of humour who follows the global warming religion to the letter who must take every opportunity to alarm and hype CO2 hysteria, ridicule and silence contrarians.

This is why the media support climate change hysteria. Alarmism sells newspapers and gains audiences. Try selling a newspaper with the headline “The weather tomorrow is going to be normal” verses “Repent our CO2 sins Thermageddon is upon us”.

I have four types of birdseed.
My hypothesis is: “Birds in my backyard will prefer feed type #1″,
I placed all four types of feed out in separate feeders to test my hypothesis. The birds actually ate more of feed type #4. So, I’ve changed my hypothesis to “Birds in my backyard prefer feed type #4″.
With my original hypothesis dis-proven, I’ve changed it to match the empirical evidence that I have collected. I will re-test it for empirical truth.I am a scientist.

Truth and reality, or even accurate measurements of mundane objects and events,can scarcely be established by a democratic vote. Furthermore, the idea that the more limited the scope of study of the observer/reporter, the more scientific he is, is patently absurd. It would result in the philosopher being the least scientific of all categories of researchers, followed closely by the theoretical physicist, the cosmologist, the astronomer, and the geologist.

As in all assessments of human endeavour and capability, the assessor himself (in this case, the writer of the assessment, or his/her editor/publisher, etc.) is the ultimate judge of the definition of competence of the author of advice being offered, just as in decisions as to what religious, medical, legal, or financial advice to accept.

It is essentially nothing but the mass media assuming the mantle of God-given omniscience so recently torn from the shoulders of the prelates of the Christian churches. But looking at the situation reasonably, one has to conclude that if the reading public of the developed world hasn’t understood by now that one cannot accept the printed word uncritically, and that ultimately, the reader must take responsibility for what he/she believes, then there is little hope for the future of humanity.

I have four types of birdseed.
My hypothesis is: “Birds in my backyard will prefer feed type #1″,
I placed all four types of feed out in separate feeders to test my hypothesis. The birds actually ate more of feed type #4. So, I’ve changed my hypothesis to “Birds in my backyard prefer feed type #4″.

Ah! That is where you made your mistake!
You are using raw data WITHOUT CORRECTIONS. All proper climate scientists use corrections. I think that you will find, once you have done the stats, that feed type #2, which has a very high tax on it, is the proper answer…

Steve, you are spot on. How can alarmists put forward a mere engineer (a good one, btw) like Bill Nye the Science Guy, who just portrays being a scientist on television? Looking forward to the “who is not a scientist” label being appended to future media references to Bill Nye.

All Scientists know that when approaching a pretty girl, that if they keep halving the distance between them they will never quite reach her —- engineers know this too but they also know that if they keep halving the distance often enough, they can get close enough for all practical purposes.

2+2=4. An honest man who thought it equaled 8 because he was observing and measuring rabbits but then admits his mistake when it is pointed out to him has earned my respect whether or not he is an engineer or a scientist or even a politician.
It is those who play origami with the facts to bolster the desired illusion that are despicable.
Many of us disagree on topics and opinions and beliefs outside of CAGW. Personalities may clash but that doesn’t change the fact that 2+2=4.

Let’s start a list of prominent AGW opinion leaders/promoters who are not scientists, according to the new definition.
First on the list if the Chairman of the IPCC
Of course Bill McKibben
Bob Ward
Bill Nye, the science guy
And everytime they speak on climate, point out that they are not scientists:
Bill McKibben, non-scientist, claims the world is ending and falsely claims that he is an American Indian
Bill Nye, the non-science guy speaks on science but is not a scientist……..
Rajendra K. Pachauri, who is not a scientist but claims he is, ……….
And etc.
Fun can be had by all.

justthefactswuwt, I provided three examples from major news sites in my article where Mr. Eschenbach’s credentials were misrepresented and irrefutable evidence that he was well aware of it. In none of those cases did Mr. Eschenbach show any attempt to correct these inaccuracies. I have never seen this behavior from the owner of this website or others like Steve McIntyre. You may not like my criticism but it is completely valid, fully sourced and certainly not a smear.

This is what happens when you let any person write an article, especially those who do not know how to do proper research like justthefactswuwt, as they wind up spreading misinformation. Einstein had an undergraduate teaching degree in Physics and Mathematics and took the job at the patent office because he was unable to find work as a teacher. His scientific credentials are impeccable.

Politicians, lawyers, and religious leaders see falsification as an attack on their ‘consensus position’ and attack the individual providing that falsification.
Howevr, a scientist carries out research to find the facts of nature or the area studied and the truth in hypotheses. As such a real scientist is ‘egoless’ putting hypotheses openly into the ‘public square’ with all assumptions and supporting data to be falsified. If (s)he or someone else falsifies the hypothesis it is welcomed as a learning exercise and used to reform the hypothesis – falsification of the hypothesis is not seen as an attack – but as assistance in seeking the true facts.

Hence, if someone attacks the person who falsifies their hypothesis, they are not a scientist but probably a politician ,lawyer or a member of a religion.

Poptech has a personality disorder. Sad, because he does a good job collating data.

So now you have to resort to libeling me because you don’t like the truth being exposed about Mr. Eschenbach’s actual credentials? You will have to get over it, as I promised it is the number one result in Google;

I am not libeling. That is my opinion, based on your unusual attacks. What is your motivation to tar someone who argues on the same side? That seems to me akin to a defense lawyer agreeing with the prosecution: “He’s right, your honor. My client probably is a criminal.”

There are several definitions of scientist posted in this thread. None of them would make Willis a non-scientist. So I don’t understand the motivation for your personal attacks. And make no mistake, they are personal attacks.

Also, I do not care much for credentials; never have. I want understanding, and Willis is good at providing it.

I might also point out that you are pretty thin-skinned regarding criticism. I don’t see Willis responding here like you do. Maybe you should think about that.

I got a B.S. in engineering from Rose-Hulman and went on to get a Ph.D. in a science at a mid-tier state university. From my experiences, my opinion is that the average Rose-Hulman engineer is considerably better than the average state-school scientist at science. And they’re far, far, better than the average state schooler at logical reasoning.

I have four types of birdseed.
My hypothesis is: “Birds in my backyard will prefer feed type #1″,
I placed all four types of feed out in separate feeders to test my hypothesis. The birds actually ate more of feed type #4. So, I’ve changed my hypothesis to “Birds in my backyard prefer feed type #4″.

I am also a scientist and after reviewing your public data (thank you for publishing this critical data set). I have come to the conclusion that your experiment was flawed. It appears to me that the feeder holding bird seed #1 was too close to the fence and the neighbors cat who likes to lounge there, and the birds wisely chose to partake of their second choice seed type #4. In my back yard the birds always preferred seed #1. I do realize that the birds in my back yard may not have the same bird seed preference as the birds in your back yard so I suggest you re-test the evaluation with the seeds swapped from bird feeder #1 to bird feeder #4 and see if their preference follows the #4 seed or stays with the bird feeder more remote from the neighbors cat.

What is unusual about properly presenting someone’s credentials when people believe in misinformation? My motivation is to stop the spread of misinformation. Name one thing I stated about Mr. Eschenbach that is not true and I will correct it. They are only considered personal attacks to Willis fanboys.

The definition I provided for a scientist is the only one anyone but those who never applied for a job takes seriously. I am well aware the “dumb like me” crowd and Willis fanboys do not care about credentials – everyone else does.

“Reaction was swift, according to remarks posted to the message board reviewed by The Indianapolis Star. Several IDEM staff members wrote that the comment flew in the face of nearly unanimous scientific consensus and offended and embarrassed them.”

I get roundly ignored every time I say it, but if we want to turn this debate around in a hurry, all it would take is a well designed survey by a large and respected polling firm to ascertain what percentage of qualified scientists….say those with a Ph.d …really buy the alarmist approach to “climate change.”

Consensus seeking is not a good way to conduct science of course, but claims of a consensus is a powerful argument to the average person, especially in this case where science is being used to drive policy. Overturn the 97 percent consensus myth, and you’ve changed the debate significantly.

Poptech,
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. WILLIS HAS FAILED TO CORRECT HIS MISREPRESENTATIONS AND IS NOT CREDENTIALED CLIMATE MODELER OR SCIENTIST OR ANYTHING ELSE WORTH MENTIONING. WHAT DO YOU WANT NOW??????!!!!!!

Ignore what they SAY – look at what they DO. No real scientist would try to keep their raw data from being published with the excuse that it will be used to discredit them, and yet AGW proponents spend millions on lawyers to do just that. Case closed, IMHO.

I like to point out to true believers that most “research” on climate is about predicting what would happen IF climate change occurred. not about demonstrating that it HAS.

What is unusual about properly presenting someone’s credentials when people believe in misinformation? My motivation is to stop the spread of misinformation. Name one thing I stated about Mr. Eschenbach that is not true and I will correct it……

You are a [snip], hypocrite and a fool. Tell me that any of those things are not true. If you do then how do I know?

I have told you before and I will tell you again – YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE. How do WE KNOW that you are a credentialed computer analyst? Why should we take your word for it? Not so easy eh? ;) Get off your bloody high horse, you are boring the crap out of us.

Poptech is the one spreading disinformation by claiming he is a credentialed computer analyst while not providing the evidence.Where is your evidence that you are indeed a credentialed computer analyst as you claim? Where is it? You can’t do it because you are a HYPOCRITE.

I am not a hypocrite because I have told you before I am not a credentialed scientist. I am the lowest of the low but I will write what I want if allowed.

justthefactswuwt, I provided three examples from major news sites in my article where Mr. Eschenbach’s credentials were misrepresented and irrefutable evidence that he was well aware of it.

Can you cite any examples of where he “misrepresents his credentials”?

In none of those cases did Mr. Eschenbach show any attempt to correct these inaccuracies.

In terms, “knowingly allows them to be misrepresented”, as been shown in this thread, one does not need degrees or to have a certain type of job in order to be a scientist, modeler or an engineer or, so Willis has nothing to correct.

I have never seen this behavior from the owner of this website or others like Steve McIntyre. You may not like my criticism but it is completely valid, fully sourced and certainly not a smear.

I am interested to see where you “fully sourced” that Willis “misrepresents his credentials”.

This is what happens when you let any person write an article, especially those who do not know how to do proper research like justthefactswuwt, as they wind up spreading misinformation.

Please bestow upon us your wisdom on how to do this “proper research”, as apparently all of the research I’ve been doing to date is “improper”?…

Einstein had an undergraduate teaching degree in Physics and Mathematics and took the job at the patent office because he was unable to find work as a teacher.

So now an undergrad in Physics or Mathematics is enough for a scientist label? In your article you wrote that:

“Criticism: “Anyone who follows the scientific method is a scientist.”
Rebuttal: A scientist is ‘a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems.'”

Either you need to have a “job” that “involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems”, or you don’t, you can’t have it both ways. By your newly coined definition of scientists including Einstein, should we now refer to any patent clerk who has a undergrad in any area of science as a scientist?

His scientific credentials are impeccable.

And all of them, except an undergrad teaching degree, came after he done some of the most important scientific work in history. If Willis decides to get a PHD will that retrospectively make all of his work more scientific?….

Why is justthefactswuwt allowed to tell a half-truth about Einstein as if he was just some bumbling patent clerk?

Obviously you’ve never invented anything, nor had any interaction with any of the world’s patent clerks, as they are far from bumbling…

Jimbo says: Where is your evidence that you are indeed a credentialed computer analyst as you claim?

A “computer analyst” is a job title that has certain computer science/information technology job requirements, which I can easily prove by posting my resume but since I don’t post personal information online, you would have to take my word for it (or not). Either way I really don’t care as I have never claimed to be computer modeler, engineer or climate scientist.

Can you cite any examples of where he “misrepresents his credentials”?

Strawman, I said he, “either misrepresents his credentials or knowingly allows them to be misrepresented.” That was an open ended question of which I provided three examples as my reason for asking. Now I find it hard to believe three different journalists made up credentials for him on their own but anything is possible.

Why did you fail to present the quote of mine in it’s proper context? Are you intellectually dishonest?

In terms, “knowingly allows them to be misrepresented”, as been shown in this thread, one does not need degrees or to have a certain type of job in order to be a scientist, modeler or an engineer or, so Willis has nothing to correct.

Yes of course anyone can be a scientist, computer modeler or engineer by simply declaring it! Who knew? It must be nice to live in fantasy land, where credentials don’t matter and you never have to apply for a job.

Just a correction from a previous post. I misspoke when I said it was 130 yrs from the time of Galileo that parallax was demonstrated. Galileo’s second trial was in 1633 and he died in 1642. Bessel proved the parallax of 61 Cygni in 1838. My mistake.

Answering the question; What is a scientist ? should be a piece of cake for anyone who can answer the question; What is an artist ?

Seems to me, the answer is in the eye of the beholder.

But I think there probably isn’t one universal definition of “scientist.”

Clearly, there have been some giants, who in some way unraveled the mysteries, of how the universe appears to work. It’s not at all clear that they ever put their “discoveries” to use.

Some scientists, clearly discover things; they may not care, whether that matters or not.

A lady Physicist, I happened to meet on the #18 train from CERN to downtown Geneva, clearly knew about the Higgs goings on, at CERN; I didn’t ask what she specifically did there. But a fellow traveler asked her what they really had discovered. Her response was that some of them felt that they had no idea what the answer to that question is. They think they found the Higgs Boson; but they really aren’t sure if they have found anything; just observed something different. No she didn’t say it was a load of guff.

But if Higgs, was the only missing piece of the standard model; why the hell are they all still working there. They don’t have a clear view, of a light at the end of a tunnel.

Well there is that upstart, Gravity, that is still stinking up the place. Maybe CERN++ can go looking for a graviton.

But back to scientists; is using accepted science to actually do something, being a scientist, or is that just “engineering” ??

I have a science degree; not an engineering degree; but I started in a high school, that was capable of turning out plumbers, and electricians (and did so ). But my working career has always been doing something; or making something. In some ways, perhaps an engineer, would have done a better job. S(he) might have found a more cost effective solution, where mine, might have been a higher performing result, except maybe not in the economics department.

I never liked stopping at “good enough.”. Engineers know what’s good enough; and NO, I do not mean they take safety shortcuts. I’ve never known any engineer, who thought it was ok to take safety risks.

So some of my patents have been text book classics; doesn’t mean they became economic success stories. But there is a certain satisfaction in being able to say; OK, let’s see you trump that !

Personally, I’m glad that my engineering career was founded on a science degree, and not an engineering degree. Some people will work forever on a problem, and never discover that you can’t get there from here, for fundamental scientific reasons.

Some of the very best engineers, I have known, were graduates from techniciandom; they had NO recognized engineering degree; but the learned on the bench, how to get stuff to work properly.

Strawman, I said he, “either misrepresents his credentials or knowingly allows them to be misrepresented.” That was an open ended question of which I provided three examples as my reason for asking.

So you are are saying that you have no evidence that he “misrepresents his credentials”?

Now I find it hard to believe three different journalists made up credentials for him on their own but anything is possible.

If Willis was misrepresenting his credentials, don’t you think that he’d at least be consistent about it. Do you think it’s possible that these journalists looked at his body of work and made determinations about his areas of expertise themselves?

Why did you fail to present the quote of mine in it’s proper context?

It’s quoted in full in the article. I am excerpting the substantive portions for closer examination.

BTW, just in case anyone cares about the technical details, both science and mathematics are branches of philosophy.

I make the point because many people, even very well regarded scientists, do not know that. It’s pertinent especially when self-styled ‘rationalists’ suggest that we don’t need philosophy now that we have science (yes, some people actually say this!).

So you are are saying that you have no evidence that he “misrepresents his credentials”?

You made this strawman argument already, are you going try and address what was said in its actual context or not?

If Willis was misrepresenting his credentials, don’t you think that he’d at least be consistent about it. Do you think it’s possible that these journalists looked at his body of work and made determinations about his areas of expertise themselves?

With a resume like his, consistency is the last thing he is known for. You seem to be unable to read sentences as well. Did you not notice the “or” in my statement?

It’s quoted in full in the article. I am excerpting the substantive portions for closer examination.

And presented out of context. That statement was made followed by three clear examples to support the allegation. I ask again;

Are you intellectually dishonest?

No, “anyone can be a scientist, computer modeler or engineer by simply” doing science, computer modeling or engineering, no degree or job required.

How does it feel to live in fantasy land?

If I apply the scientific method to opening a bag of M&Ms am I now a scientist?

I don’t understand how that pertains to this discussion. Willis has credentials and has a job, they are just not in the field he has chosen to research and write on.

“It might be more appropriate to ask what distinguishes the scientist from the engineer.”

These days, for one thing, the consequences for an engineer in most fields whose “model” doesn’t work can be devastating (bridges, airplanes, electrical grids, pipelines, railways, hospital emergency rooms, space travel, dams, tunnels, …..). We are surrounded and take for granted, by and large, the marvel that is the product of engineering design in our daily lives. Many things in the domain of the engineer are purloined by science or seen by even extraordinary individuals as being science. The very misnomer rocket science is an obvious example of this. These days, I think engineers are still doing the job.

Real scientists of the above anachronistic definitions are actually few in number both historically and in present times (would it be naughty to say that more than 97% wouldn’t meet the strict definitions). With comparatively little real new stuff being discovered, and briar pipes, horn-rimmed glasses and white lab coats now passe (that was the first attempt to distinguish themselves), they have taken to dividing the hard sciences into dozens and dozens of new sciences and borrowing from their poor cousins in social sciences, adding the suffix “science(s)” to the names so there would be no mistake, this to occupy the unmanageable hoards that are churned out at an ever increasing pace (a consequence of the open door demo_cratizing of the admittance process for ungifted candidates for higher learning), taken on titles as Heads or Chairs of improbable fanciful departments, taken to stealing each others and their students ideas and publishing quadrillions of largely useless pages (14,000 papers in only a decade on climate science alone – that’s what struck me as remarkable, not the 97 percent consensus- you would need a consensus to jam this many through). Did you know that the leader of the Ship of Fools is a leading researcher in the Centre of Excellence for Wifty Poofery and Clutzography Sciences? Did you know that after his voyage he was given a lofty Award for his work? Did you know that the Nobel Committee is in talks with Cracker Jack TM to streamline handing out of prizes? (that’s only rumored, but I can see the benefits of it). What is a scientist, then? In keeping with the historic definitions, Willis Eschenbach is indeed a scientist. Many of those in your history books were “amateur scientists”. No link – I leave this for your homework.

We have to accept that having a Ph.D., does not suggest what was the subject of your Ph.D thesis? One candidate was writing a Ph.D thesis, on the effect on students who only had one pair of shoes to wear to school. Yes – I jest not! I would have loved to do a science degree, but my mathematics was so poor, I could not work out the science calculator. One has to be good at chemistry and physics too. Both requiring a good mathematics background. But archaeology and palaeoanthropology suited me best. And ancient history. But I got a Distinction in a quantitative analysis project of a wall of rock art. I even passed producing a stone age arrow flint. (Plus bruised fingers) I enjoyed archaeology and palaeo, it explained the phases of human and their hominid evolutionary paths. And one thing for sure, climate dictated how they survived as hunter and gatherers, and how they utilized resources to farm. One thing we found out, was the landscape and climate dictates how humans make an income (survival tactics) and one place through its rock art described the animals and people in an area which was once grasslands, and is now desert..
So climate does dictate how we can live, and grow crops and farm animals. And mother nature kills us off when an imbalance arrives.
I can’t declare I am a scientist, but I sure know how humans were effected by climate changes, and what forces are involved that dictate our weather patterns. Humans are forced to adapt, and those that cannot die off. That’s called evolution.

PS. Science and forensic science is used in archaeology and palaeoanthropology by the way.
They are not like Indiana Jones. It’s the methodology they use and data available that supplies the hypothesis. And not all archaeologists make the correct presumptions without the back up of other disciplines, who examine remains and give a scientific result.

Let’s end this discussion on a lighter note, a scientist is anyone who uses scientific methodology to arrive at a scientific result. Those that presume they have used scientific methods, can be challenged. Corrupting the data to suit the hypothesis is not on. It happens. On a lighter note, if someone blames a mouse has moved two hundred yards up a mountain because of climate change, fails to produce other variables that can account for this. Like being chased by predators. A thesis or hypothesis to claim it is correct, is usually examined by others to confirm their findings. This is what Mann et al have been unable to do universally.

You made this strawman argument already, are you going try and address what was said in its actual context or not?

I did not present a strawman argument, I presented your words and asked if you can provide evidence to support them.

With a resume like his, consistency is the last thing he is known for. You seem to be unable to read sentences as well. Did you not notice the “or” in my statement?

Placing an “or” in a sentence does not give you carte blanche to make inaccurate statements, e.g. X person is a liar or they have not corrected the people who said that they are a liar. Unless you can present evidence that Wiilis “misrepresents his credentials”, the sentence, “or” included, is still inaccurate and unfair.

And presented out of context. That statement was made followed by three clear examples to support the allegation. I ask again;

Are you intellectually dishonest?

No, and given that you are hiding behind an “or”, this is a situation where you should be reflecting rather than accusing.

How does it feel to live in fantasy land?

Probably similar to how it feels to cling to ones degree and pretend to be smarter and more capable than those who learned outside of an academic environment. It might surprise you, but some people don’t need to sit in a classroom in order to learn. Furthermore, some people undertake scientific research and endeavors because they enjoy them, rather than being compensated to undertake them.

If I apply the scientific method to opening a bag of M&Ms am I now a scientist?

Yes, the subject matter of what you choice to research is irrelevant, it is it the process that matters, i.e.:

“The scientific method is the process by which science is carried out.[12] Because science builds on previous knowledge, it consistently improves our understanding of the world.[13] The scientific method also improves itself in the same way,[14] meaning that it gradually becomes more effective at generating new knowledge.[15][16] For example, the concept of falsification (first proposed in 1934) reduces confirmation bias by formalizing the attempt to disprove hypotheses rather than prove them.[17]

The overall process involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct.[18] There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, they are better considered as general principles.[19] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (or to the same degree), and are not always in the same order. As noted by William Whewell (1794–1866), “invention, sagacity, [and] genius”[20] are required at every step:

Formulation of a question: The question can refer to the explanation of a specific observation, as in “Why is the sky blue?”, but can also be open-ended, as in “How can I design a drug to cure this particular disease?” This stage also involves looking up and evaluating evidence from previous experiments, personal scientific observations or assertions, and/or the work of other scientists. If the answer is already known, a different question that builds on the previous evidence can be posed. When applying the scientific method to scientific research, determining a good question can be very difficult and affects the final outcome of the investigation.[21]

Hypothesis: An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question, that may explain the observed behavior of a part of our universe. The hypothesis might be very specific, e.g., Einstein’s equivalence principle or Francis Crick’s “DNA makes RNA makes protein”,[22] or it might be broad, e.g., unknown species of life dwell in the unexplored depths of the oceans. A statistical hypothesis is a conjecture about some population. For example, the population might be people with a particular disease. The conjecture might be that a new drug will cure the disease in some of those people. Terms commonly associated with statistical hypotheses are null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. A null hypothesis is the conjecture that the statistical hypothesis is false, e.g., that the new drug does nothing and that any cures are due to chance effects. Researchers normally want to show that the null hypothesis is false. The alternative hypothesis is the desired outcome, e.g., that the drug does better than chance. A final point: a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning that one can identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested.

Prediction: This step involves determining the logical consequences of the hypothesis. One or more predictions are then selected for further testing. The less likely that the prediction would be correct simply by coincidence, the stronger evidence it would be if the prediction were fulfilled; evidence is also stronger if the answer to the prediction is not already known, due to the effects of hindsight bias (see also postdiction). Ideally, the prediction must also distinguish the hypothesis from likely alternatives; if two hypotheses make the same prediction, observing the prediction to be correct is not evidence for either one over the other. (These statements about the relative strength of evidence can be mathematically derived using Bayes’ Theorem.)

Testing: This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis. Scientists (and other people) test hypotheses by conducting experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from an hypothesis. If they agree, confidence in the hypothesis increases; otherwise, it decreases. Agreement does not assure that the hypothesis is true; future experiments may reveal problems. Karl Popper advised scientists to try to falsify hypotheses, i.e., to search for and test those experiments that seem most doubtful. Large numbers of successful confirmations are not convincing if they arise from experiments that avoid risk.[23] Experiments should be designed to minimize possible errors, especially through the use of appropriate scientific controls. For example, tests of medical treatments are commonly run as double-blind tests. Test personnel, who might unwittingly reveal to test subjects which samples are the desired test drugs and which are placebos, are kept ignorant of which are which. Such hints can bias the responses of the test subjects. Furthermore, failure of an experiment does not necessarily mean the hypothesis is false. Experiments always depend on several hypotheses, e.g., that the test equipment is working properly, and a failure may be a failure of one of the auxiliary hypotheses. (See the Duhem-Quine thesis.) Experiments can be conducted in a college lab, on a kitchen table, at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider, at the bottom of an ocean, on Mars (using one of the working rovers), and so on. Astronomers do experiments, searching for planets around distant stars. Finally, most individual experiments address highly specific topics for reasons of practicality. As a result, evidence about broader topics is usually accumulated gradually.

Analysis: This involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding on the next actions to take. The predictions of the hypothesis are compared to those of the null hypothesis, to determine which is better able to explain the data. In cases where an experiment is repeated many times, a statistical analysis such as a chi-squared test may be required. If the evidence has falsified the hypothesis, a new hypothesis is required; if the experiment supports the hypothesis but the evidence is not strong enough for high confidence, other predictions from the hypothesis must be tested. Once a hypothesis is strongly supported by evidence, a new question can be asked to provide further insight on the same topic. Evidence from other scientists and experience are frequently incorporated at any stage in the process. Depending on the complexity of the experiment, many iterations may be required to gather sufficient evidence to answer a question with confidence, or to build up many answers to highly specific questions in order to answer a single broader question.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

If you where to undertake the scientific method to evaluate the most effective way to open a bag of M&Ms, you would be wasting your time, but carrying out science and would be a scientist. Conversely, if you have 5 PHDs in various areas of science and have a job as the “chief scientist” for some organization, but you do not leverage the scientific method, you are not a scientist.

I did not present a strawman argument, I presented your words and asked if you can provide evidence to support them.

Perpetual strawman, those were not my words. That was a distorted out of context presentation of them.

Placing an “or” in a sentence does not give you carte blanche to make inaccurate statements, e.g. X person is a liar or they have not corrected the people who said that they are a liar. Unless you can present evidence that Wiilis “misrepresents his credentials”, the sentence, “or” included, is still inaccurate and unfair.

It is was not an inaccurate statement but a completely valid one based on the evidence I provided. That was not a single case but multiple misrepresentations in major newspapers that he was all aware of. Do you wish me to find more? I can invest the time but thought three was enough to make my point. Willis fanboys never learn.

No, and given that you are hiding behind an “or”, this is a situation where you should be reflecting rather than accusing.

Then present my statements in their proper context.

Probably similar to how it feels to cling to ones degree and pretend to be smarter and more capable than those who learned outside of an academic environment. It might surprise you, but some people don’t need to sit in a classroom in order to learn. Furthermore, some people undertake scientific research and endeavors because they enjoy them, rather than being compensated to undertake them.

Strawman, that is not my argument, this is you defending your lack of credentials. People can learn in many ways, none of which makes them a scientist.

Yes, the subject matter of what you choice to research is irrelevant, it is it the process that matters,

ROFLMAO! So anyone who applies the scientific method to opening a bag of M&Ms is now a scientist!!! Should people list this on their resume?

Peter Miller says:
April 6, 2014 at 1:33 am
. . . . .
In my opinion, geologists know the most about climate and how it works in a historical sense.
Geologists – with the obvious exception of government ones, where there are continuing employment considerations – are the most sceptical group on the planet. I am a geologist and I know of no geologist who believes in alarmist CAGW theory.
_________________________________
Try Donald R. Prothero, who wrote the below referenced article “How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused,” in Skeptic magazine. Subsequent articles by other published in Skeptic have suggested holding deniers legally accountable.

Protehro seems to be actively involved in the Skeptic society that founded by Michael Shermer who has done much to combat irrational thinking and popular delusions. Unfortunately, on the matter of CAGW, the high priests of skepticism, inexplicably, seem to have abandoned their principles:
“Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. . . .Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.”

Absolutely, justthefact…! And conclusions can change when more data becomes available. Science also depends on observation and experiment to support analysis. Humans for centuries even over our time on this planet, know for sure, observation was something they depended on, before they had meteorologists. I check the radar each day, and thunderstorm or cyclone warnings on BOM. While it is pouring with rain in an area close to me, we have little. But better be warned than not.
Our farmers in Australia know something about cloud formation dictating the likelihood of rain.
No fluffy things in the sky, the likelihood of rain is nil. (Simplistic I know). But there are things called rain shadows, and the earliest farmers who were not in rain shadows, grew richer than those that were. The difference between modern humans and nomadic humans, we can’t move away from our settlements to avoid severe weather events.

Pop, writing essays at my university, they didn’t like students putting and/or in essays when tackling the same problem. It demonstrates they don’t know precisely its a loophole. I do think this type of argument is petty.

How exactly has excerpting you words distorted them. Are you saying that you did not mean to imply that Wiilis “misrepresents his credentials”, when you wrote that he “misrepresents his credentials”?

It is was not an inaccurate statement but a completely valid one based on the evidence I provided. That was not a single case but multiple misrepresentations in major newspapers that he was all aware of. Do you wish me to find more?

Yes, you have not presented any evidence that Wiilis “misrepresents his credentials”. Go find some or correct your article.

Willis fanboys never learn.

I am not defending Willis, I am defending every scientist who you besmirch because they have chosen to pursue a non-scientific focused education and profession.

anyone who is reading this thread has likely already read that comment. We have new moved on to an excerpt such that we can focus on a portion of what you’ve written. Get over it.

Strawman, that is not my argument, this is you defending your lack of credentials. People can learn in many ways, none of which makes them a scientist.

You didn’t present an “argument” you presented a question, and an inane one at that, i.e.; “How does it feel to live in fantasy land?”

ROFLMAO! So anyone who applies the scientific method to opening a bag of M&Ms is now a scientist!!!

We seem to have hit an impasse here, did you read the definition of scientific method? What does the subject matter of the research have to do with it’s categorization as science?

Should people list this on their resume?

I bet if you’d gotten 876,802 views in the last 12 months, you’d put that on your resume. (I’d provide his total views on WUWT, but apparently WUWT has broken the WordPress counter, because when you click “All time” the clock just spins forever.)

“Google Dictionary” does not exist anymore (discontinued 2011) but it was never a separate dictionary to begin with. Rather it simply used definitions from Oxford which is why those two for “scientist” are identical. This is now integrated in Google Search using the search operator “define :”

Claiming the Google result is a unique definition or there is a “Google Dictionary” is laughable. Between that, the misinformation on Einstein and citing Wikipedia, this is one of the worst researched articles on WUWT.

Also please learn to do real research and cite valid sources not Wikipedia which can be edited by a 5 year old.

We are still waiting for your bestow upon us your wisdom on how to do “real” and “proper” research. Can you cite the inaccuracies in the Wikipedia definition that have been inserted by these 5 year-olds? Can you offer an alternative definition of the scientific method, that supports you assertion that it requires a science degree and job in order to undertake?

The Wikipedia definition is the best. The references to ” physical and natural” sciences is a veiled inference that mathematics is the preferred language, even though that particular language, while precise, quickly runs into limitations in the “we don’t know squat ” realities we face.

Science is a process. You absorb all the data you possibly can. You wait for an inspiration and formulate a hypothesis. You strive for hypotheses that can be validated or falsified by existing data. Sometimes that is possible, other times not
.
Einstein’s streetcars were not mathematics, they were metaphor.

“Google Dictionary” does not exist anymore (discontinued 2011) but it was never a separate dictionary to begin with. Rather it simply used definitions from Oxford which is why those two for “scientist” are identical. This is now integrated in Google Search using the search operator “define :”

It is still the definition offered by the most used search engine and most viewed website in the world.

Claiming the Google result is a unique definition or there is a “Google Dictionary” is laughable.

You’re the one who is “Claiming the Google result is a unique definition”, I put them next to each other in the article so that it would be apparent to readers that they were the same. The point is that Webster’s definition is an outlier.

Between that, the misinformation on Einstein and citing Wikipedia, this is one of the worst researched articles on WUWT.

I refuted your point about Einstein, and am awaiting your detailed research on the 5 year old’s mistakes on Wikipedia…

Poptech says: April 6, 2014 at 8:54 pm
People can learn in many ways, none of which makes them a scientist.
================
You sir are a troll and do not warrant further reply. Your argument is nonsense. Recall the Wizard of Oz, when he granted the strawman brains, he granted him nothing more than a diploma.

Letters after ones name signifies learning. It does not signify wisdom. Universities are full of learned professors that call themselves scientists. And they live in Universities because the world of business would not have them.

These folks are not scientists, they are university professors. PhDs’ are Doctors of Philosophy. They are not scientists. They are Philosophers.

anyone who is reading this thread has likely already read that comment. We have new moved on to an excerpt such that we can focus on a portion of what you’ve written. Get over it.

There you did but you distorted the context by acting as if there was only one choice. No one intellectually honest will support the argument that he did not allow his credentials to be misrepresented. If you think I am going to ever get over someone lying about what I said, you don’t know me very well.

You didn’t present an “argument” you presented a question, and an inane one at that, i.e.; “How does it feel to live in fantasy land?”

Yes I asked a question – your response was still a strawman. I take it you never applied for a job or was it only entry level?

We seem to have hit an impasse here, did you read the definition of scientific method? What does the subject matter of the research have to do with it’s categorization as science?

I am well aware of the scientific method but I don’t take things posted off Wikipedia seriously. Only those who do not know how to do proper research do.

I bet if you’d gotten 876,802 views in the last 12 months, you’d put that on your resume. (I’d provide his total views on WUWT, but apparently WUWT has broken the WordPress counter, because when you click “All time” the clock just spins forever.)

You really don’t know who I am, this is entertaining. I have sites that grossed $100,000… (nope shouldn’t say anymore).

Anyway, under “Climate Scientist” should he list web hits as his credentials? ROFLMAO!

And yes I am a scientist. I apply the scientific method to public transportation, and in the process have saved millions of dollars each year for the city in which I live.

What climate scientists has generated a single dime in profit for the public good from their efforts? For sure many have lined their own pockets, and the talk about benefits in the future, but which among them have generated any profit for the public today?

Because in the end isn’t this the true measure? If I’m applying the scientific method to generate millions for my city, while so called “scientists” (professors) only cost money and show no profit whatsoever except for promises and hand outs from governments and alumni, who is the real scientists?

Poptech says:
April 6, 2014 at 9:58 pm
You really don’t know who I am, this is entertaining. I have sites that grossed $100,000… (nope shouldn’t say anymore).
=====================
you are al gore in drag?

We are still waiting for your bestow upon us your wisdom on how to do “real” and “proper” research. Can you cite the inaccuracies in the Wikipedia definition that have been inserted by these 5 year-olds? Can you offer an alternative definition of the scientific method, that supports you assertion that it requires a science degree and job in order to undertake?

I will give you a hint, never reference Wikipedia. You are obviously massively computer illiterate and have no idea how Wikipedia works. There is no way to verify ANYTHING about someone who edits a Wikipedia page outside of an IP address recorded. Anytime you load a page, the contents can be different.

Talk about a strawman, I made no such assertion. Are you really this bad at debating someone’s actual argument that you have to perpetually distort it?

It is still the definition offered by the most used search engine and most viewed website in the world.

This is not an argument for your incompetence.

You’re the one who is “Claiming the Google result is a unique definition”, I put them next to each other in the article so that it would be apparent to readers that they were the same. The point is that Webster’s definition is an outlier.

Sure you did genius. So the correct definition is the consensus? ROFLMAO!

I refuted your point about Einstein, and am awaiting your detailed research on the 5 year old’s mistakes on Wikipedia…,

No you didn’t. Please stop embarrassing yourself further. Do you REALLY want an education on how Wikipedia works? This will not end well for you, I promise.

ferdberple says: April 6, 2014 at 10:00 pm
And yes I am a scientist. I apply the scientific method to public transportation, and in the process have saved millions of dollars each year for the city in which I live.

Good to see more fanboys show up. Here we have one apparently on drugs of some sort.

Poptech says:
April 6, 2014 at 10:07 pm
justthefactswuwt says: April 6, 2014 at 9:39 pm
===============
This reads like two kids squabbling really. come one guys. propose a solution. the Arabs and the Israelis have already proven we cannot fix the past. Lets work on the present and the future will take care of itself.

Poptech says:
April 6, 2014 at 10:16 pm
Good to see more fanboys show up.
=============
Al, big guy. How have your been? I didn’t recognize you at first. Loved your last work. What was it again? My Carbon Fat Print?

We have learned that if you apply the scientific method to opening a bag of M&Ms or if you get thousands of web hits you are a scientist! Think of all the scientist who could come out of the porn industry without much effort.

Until recently [the last 20 – 30 years], a degree really meant something. Not so much any more. As time goes by degrees are churned out at huge expense, as a product that makes lots of money for schools – and the schools act as a great networking tool for young grads.

Just look at our Community Organizer: he got his degree from Columbia, but as the WSJ reported, not one concurrent student or professor remembers him being there. Ever. Not in classes, or on campus. Nor in any dorms. Yet he went on to graduate Magna cum Laude from Harvard, astonishingly as a Constitutional scholar! Anyone taking a 10th grade Civics class [although they don’t teach Civics any more] would know that he has no understanding of the Constitution at all. Yet he has a great CV.

And then there’s Algore, who got a D in Science, and was unable to make progress in the über-easy field of Theology. He later flunked out. Yet Gore’s words are constantly reported by the media as if he knows which end is up.

Most of us can separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to college degrees. Any degree with ” __________ Studies” appended is essentially worthless in the real world.

But on the other side of the coin, there are rare people like Willis, whose life experiences and knowledge place him head and shoulders above the average college graduate. I doubt there is one climate alarmist who would debate with Willis in a fair, moderated venue. That’s because he has his ducks in a row, which is all that matters to most WUWT readers.

My opinion is that anyone has to prove himself here before resting on their CV laurels [and if they hide their CV, their credibility is zilch]. The only thing that matters here is scientific truth; as close as we can get to it. I don’t care if someone has a CV a mile long. If they believe in man-made runaway global warming caused by “carbon”, they are just not worth listening to no matter how many letters they have after their name.

Credentials are important, in that they will get most of us to pay closer attention to someone we haven’t heard from before. After that, though, they will have to convince us by using verifiable data, empirical evidence, and a good, logical argument. Willis does that.

There is something about Willis that Poptech is fixated on. He needs to let go, and concentrate on what he’s good at: compiling scientific data and evidence. His ad hominem attacks are obvious to everyone, and they detract from the good stuff. Too bad he can’t see himself like others see him.

I will give you a hint, never reference Wikipedia. You are obviously massively computer illiterate and have no idea how Wikipedia works. There is no way to verify ANYTHING about someone who edits a Wikipedia page outside of an IP address recorded. Anytime you load a page, the contents can be different.

Still waiting for you to cite the errors in the Wikipedia pages I’ve referenced…

off to bed. had a fantastic day and no energy left for more fun. 30 thousand plus vertical in fresh power. sunshine. didn’t see al or his honking big carbon footprint on the slopes. on wait. I must be mistaken. snow is a thing of the past. don’t tell that to my skis.

Poptech says:
April 6, 2014 at 11:15 pm
At the time that you are looking at Wikipedia page how do you determine it’s level of accuracy?
==============
numbnuts your pounding on the keyboard is keeping my awake. Everyone on the planet knows how to judge the accuracy of a Wikipedia page. Go to the “View History” tab. If you see “Poptech” anywhere on the page you can be sure it is rubbish.

Willis is not a scientist and I will make sure people are well informed of his actual credentials.

You are wrong on both accounts.

Is a ten year old who uses the scientific method for their science fair project a scientist?

That is just a silly diversion, we aren’t talking about the age of the scientists or where their science is presented. You asked “If I apply the scientific method to opening a bag of M&Ms am I now a scientist?” The question here is the subject matter, and the answer to your question is still yes. Now answer my question:

What does the subject matter of the research have to do with it’s categorization as science?

pps: anyone that things I’m a fan of Willis need only read our postings. I respect what Willis has done. I recognize that he has natural talent. And we have never hesitated to rip the other a new one when we thought the other was on shaky ground. That is the way I was taught science and I expect no less from Willis.

That’s great for both of the people who bought a hard copy dictionary last year, but for the rest of us, Google is the most viewed website on Earth, Wikipedia is the 6th most viewed website on Earth;http://preview.alexa.com/topsites

Newsflash, he is not a scientist and everyone but his fanboys agree with me.

That is just a silly diversion, we aren’t talking about the age of the scientists or where their science is presented. You asked “If I apply the scientific method to opening a bag of M&Ms am I now a scientist?”

Is a ten year old who uses the scientific method for their science fair project a scientist?

According to Alexa….

ROFLMAO! I just spit my drink all over the floor. Alexa rankings are largely determined by people naive enough to have the Alexa toolbar installed or too foolish to have an Anti-Virus program installed that would flag it as ad-ware.

This is too stupid. I can say Fuck but I can’t say “page rank”. Out of here before I break something.

REPLY: No, you can’t, it’s in the banned words list, “page rank” is not but may be in wordpress.com larger list of things that look like SEO spam. And please take a loooooooooooooong break. While I count you as a friend of skeptics, your attitude and constant picking of fights is getting tiresome for both me, and the moderators. Some readers are also complaining about you.

A scientist uses the scientific method to study nature, people and society. Einstein was not an amateur scientist. He was a patent clerk but he studied post-graduate physics. IMO the greatest amateur scientists were Faraday, Edison, Wright Bros., Tsiolkovsky and Farnsworth. None of them had college education in science or engineering.

I ‘m not much into at reading the comments and opinions of scientists and nonscientists regarding the causes of climate change , but it imposes a fundamental question : How many people who deal with science , can draw conclusions and to convince others of the truth of some of their evidence obtained through model or some of the ” omnipotent ” mathematics , and to not serving the feeling that some U.S. government forces and laws of nature that we neither know , nor do I want to deciphering . It’s a miracle , maybe it’s an epidemic that so many researchers ignored the mutual relations of the heavenly bodies in our solar system . If using intuition and our consciousness , which is related to the awareness of the universe (as in anyone ) , then we all realized that the human factor is irrelevant compared to those resulting from the forces that prevails among the heavenly bodies .
I hope you will find some of those that my be read, it will be of interest to hear how I can explain . But we should not expect that I would give it free of charge -back and contractual obligations to respect copyright. The more I read into these supporters of ” Mr. CO2 ” More and more I am convinced in my evidence that I’m working longer hours .
Basic indicators of climate change in the sun Jege and their numerous cycles , but they are not pathogens because the spots just a consequence of some other things that cause not only climate change but also other phenomena such as earthquakes and others .

Scientist cannot be defined without first defining science. For climate and weather, IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report provides authoritative examples of the two contemporary, competing models for science. It says:

Science may be stimulated by argument and debate, but it generally advances through formulating hypotheses clearly and testing them objectively. This testing is the key to science. In fact, one philosopher of science insisted that to be genuinely scientific, a statement must be susceptible to testing that could potentially show it to be false (Popper, 1934).[¶]

In practice, contemporary scientists usually submit their research findings to the scrutiny of their peers, which includes disclosing the methods that they use, so their results can be checked through replication by other scientists. The insights and research results of individual scientists, even scientists of unquestioned genius, are thus confirmed or rejected in the peer-reviewed literature by the combined efforts of many other scientists. [¶]

It is not the belief or opinion of the scientists that is important, but rather the results of this testing. Indeed, when Albert Einstein was informed of the publication of a book entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein, he is said to have remarked, ‘If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!’ (Hawking, 1988); however, that one opposing scientist would have needed proof in the form of testable results.

Thus science is inherently self-correcting, incorrect or incomplete scientific concepts ultimately do not survive repeated testing against observations of nature. Scientific theories are ways of explaining phenomena and providing insights that can be evaluated by comparison with physical reality. Each successful prediction adds to the weight of evidence supporting the theory, and any unsuccessful prediction demonstrates that the underlying theory is imperfect and requires improvement or abandonment. …

The attributes of science briefly described here can be used in assessing competing assertions about climate change. Can the statement under consideration, in principle, be proven false? Has it been rigorously tested? Did it appear in the peer-reviewed literature? Did it build on the existing research record where appropriate? If the answer to any of these questions is no, then less credence should be given to the assertion until it is tested and independently verified. Paragraphs, bold added, IPCC, AR4, ¶1.2 The Nature of Earth Science, p. 95.

The other definition from IPCC is what can be deduced from the rest of it Assessment Report. The work has arguably no predictions, but certainly no tested predictions significant to the global climate problem. It is infected with examples of subjectivity, expressed at every turn, in opinion words and word roots, including, for example, may, certainty, consider, understand, could, confidence, assum*, agreement, should, infer, knowledge, might, reliable, plaus*, expert, consensus, judg*, reasonable , peer, believe, think, catastrophe, and on and on. That work, borne of “Publish or Perish”, thrives on the failed peer-review system, known not for any guarantee of scientific quality, but instead for conformity to dogma.

IPCC’s definition is a decent start at defining Modern Science as it is practiced, and has been practiced, pragmatically for four centuries. The climate work IPCC reports is nothing but Post Modern Science, mostly a post World War II phenomenon. The two models of science are mutually exclusive.

Poptech must be an engineer. I’m an engineer in maintenance and have had to make scientist stuff work in the real world. It’s amazing how many demonstrations have to be made to these scientists to prove to them, (That Don’t Work!).

Happy to be an engineer now.

Yeah, wiki sucks, in my opinion too.

Still waiting for someone to prove this climate crap to me in defensible science, without going ballistic like some “cult follower”.

In my misspent youth, I studied science only to find that I could never become a scientist. But in the process was instructed on the scientific method as being central to what makes science, how to differentiate it from non-science, and in the process was taught that a scientist is one who uses the scientific method to do research on the physical universe.

The scientific method I was taught was as follows:
1) make observations (anything that cannot be observed cannot be studied by science)
2) use only those observations that are repeatable
3) look for patterns in multiple observations (steps one and two in Richard Feynman’s formulation, presupposing that steps one and two above already made, steps one through three in Gerald Holton’s 1996 formulation of the Einstein School of Inductive Method of Science, again based on the same presupposition) an observed pattern is called a hypothesis
4) run experiments, the only valid ones based on steps one and two above
5) a hypothesis that has not been disproved by experimentation at some point can be called a theory, the line is fuzzy so don’t make a big thing about it
6) goto step 4) because even theories can be disproven by experimentation

This method puts severe limits on what science can study. In other words, science can study only a subset of present day phenomena. For example, fossils are found in the rocks, present phenomena, but how and when they got there cannot be observed. People may make guesses based on their à priori beliefs, but because their guesses cannot be observed, are they science? According to the definition I was taught, no.

The observation was made once that the sun’s shadow went backwards. This observation was made ca. 700 BC. Is this a scientifically valid observation? No, this was a one time event, one time observation, an observation that cannot be repeated, therefore science cannot touch it. People can speculate, but those speculations are not science because those speculations are not based on observation.

One problem is that even when a theory is proven false, the math developed from that theory will often continue to be used as long as it gives results within usable limits. Some start early, for example Tesla rejected Quantum Mechanics because it predicted results that were different from what he found in the lab, and he considered those differences to be significant enough to reject Quantum Mechanics altogether. But most people prefer to tweak the math to continue to give acceptable results than the pain of developing a new mathematical framework for their studies. For example, after Dr. Thomas G. Barnes retired from UTEP, he revisited the original 1912 experiment comparing Einstein’s relativity theory against Newtonian physics: both theories predicted gravitational lensing — but in Dr. Barnes’ review, he found that a constant used in the math had been discovered decades later to be incorrect, and when he inserted the corrected constant, Relativity came out a poor second. But it will take more than that and the problem illustrated in the following video for most scientists to go through the pain of developing a new mathematical framework for physics.

Yes, in fact I am not actually writing this, rather just pecking at the keyboard randomly, and sometimes it makes some sense…

and missed the three articles I cited?

None of which offered any evidence that Willis “misrepresents his credentials”, and the fact that three articles each offered three different labels, i.e. scientist, engineer and computer modeler, would lead a reasonable observer to the conclude that the journalists applied the labels themselves, versus Willis misrepresenting them.

What does the subject matter of the research have to do with it’s categorization as science?

ROFLMAO! I just spit my drink all over the floor. Alexa rankings are largely determined by people naive enough to have the Alexa toolbar installed or too foolish to have an Anti-Virus program installed that would flag it as ad-ware.

My Google PageRank is higher than this site and I have barely done anything to optimize that.

Too bad that hasn’t translated into page views, and once people get to your site they seem to in quite a hurry to move on i.e.:
PopularTechnology.net – http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/populartechnology.net
Global Rank: 662,688
Bounce Rate: 85.20%
Daily Pageviews per Visitor: 1.20
Daily Time on Site: 2:29

Back in the early 90s, while I was working in a privaste research lab belonging to a telecommunications company (we were NOT “climate scientists”, almost everybody had their doctorate in physics of math) one of the physicists circulated a bit of early internet humor called “The Scientist Test”. It had only two questions, and if you answered “yes” to both then the test concluded you were a scientist. I think of this test when I hear people talking about the “consensus”; the questions were: 1. Are you an expert in some very narrow field of inquiry? 2. Do you disagree with everyone else working in this field?

The first paragraph clearly defines the meaning of a scientist. It seems clear that a scientist is someone with a special knowledge of natural or physical sciences. They don’t need to have a science degree in one, as several of the foreign members illustrate, one being an economist.

I think by any reasonable definition of the term Willis could be defined as a ‘scientist’ albeit an amateur or citizen scientist. I have no axe to grind or any special knowledge or affinity to either Willis or Poptech, but it seems to me that this discussion has been very bad tempered and centres on the meaning of one word. By any reasonable and objective reading of what constitutes a scientist Willis is one and if others call him this I would see no need for him to correct them.

I admire your work Poptech, but with respect I think it would be best to let the matter rest

IIRC, Robert Heinlein defined an engineer is a rule-of-thumb scientist, and a philosopher as a scientist with no thumbs. In short, an engineer cares more about whether something works or not rather than why it works. A philosopher does not care whether the idea works or not as long as it’s shiny. A scientist tends to want to know “why” in real world terms.

It may be easier to define who is not a scientist than who is. I would say that anyone who is so very innumerate as to not understand how the omission of any pertinent variable, or the inclusion of any variable that is not precisely accurate, in a computer predictive model, will compound these errors with every iteration of the model, cannot be described as a scientist, no matter what his ‘qualifications’ and no matter what his occupation. That would rule out most of the supposed 97%..,

Also, the difference between a capable scientist with a degree and one without is the vocational vs avocational distinction. “Amateur” tends to denote a lack of refined skill. Even some of the more extreme avocationalists posting about climate are pretty skilled. They may not listen well, but the skill is definitely there.

Obviously consensus defines science, therefore scientists are defined accordingly by consensus. If you’re part of the “in crowd” you can therefore call yourself a “scientist”, having been popularly accepted into the fold. This is just like it was in Copernicus’ time. Only completely opposite of that.

Science is merely applied reasoning. Applied reasoning does not exclusively belong to scientists. You can perfectly apply reasoning without being a scientist.

John

You want to see Francis Bacon, The New Organon about that. Bacon decried “empiricalists” not because they were empiricists – which is a modern criticism by post-modern/normal writers – but because they were not systematic. Prior to Bacon, systematic investigation was a hit-or-miss practice used by some, ignored by others. Bacon observed that huge volumes would be written based upon the results of a single experiment which was not replicated.

That is the strength of all genuine science and the scientific method. It is by definition limited in its scope to what can be observed, measured, repeated, and utilized in technology. And even in these cases, there may be many working hypotheses to interpret the data.

Scientists today use the limited nature of scientific knowledge to assure a trusting public not only that they have objectively adhered to these standards, but also that this is the only valid way to understand any subject. And yet, these limitations are constantly thrown out the window, and scientists assert their greatest authority in areas that are not even suitable to actual falsifiable, measurable, and observable phenomena. Science is a limited method of understanding. If it is not, it is not science. What is now being practiced is termed scientism.

Obviously consensus defines science, therefore scientists are defined accordingly by consensus. If you’re part of the “in crowd” you can therefore call yourself a “scientist”, having been popularly accepted into the fold. This is just like it was in Copernicus’ time. Only completely opposite of that.

Not obvious at all. Consensus is politics, and while scientists, especially academics and government forms, may play politics, the sole criterion of being a scientist is whether the individual in question practices an adherence to scientific principles. Politics can’t start or stop a nuclear reaction, can’t tell you if your house will really fall down that hill side, or if the nice flat beside the creek is a 100-year flood plain or not. Politicians can decree anything, but they cannot necessarily make it so. King Knut deliberately provided an object lesson in this to his court long before Bacon delineated a scientific method.

Re-reading the USA headline raises the question:
Why should one have to be a scientist in order to have an opinion about climate change, much less make a joke about it?
The arrogant thought suppression at the heart of the USA article is ironic and insulting, since the article was written and edited and published by non-scientists.
And then behind that is the record of major media, including USA Today, of ignoring the scientists who do question the climate consensus.
So the article is not only oxymoronic in that it seeks to use an argument from authority to intimidate even a mild questioning of climate consensus, while not honestly reporting that most of the protests over this comment is itself from non-scientists.
USA Today is a legacy of bad journalism, and this is agreat example of why.

Martin 457 says:
April 7, 2014 at 10:25 am
———————————-
There is an alternate interpretation. This same argument occurred at JoNova’s site involving the same individual. The same issues were vehemently defended – “qualified scientist” and “peer review”.

Now most sceptics can see that most climastologists are not qualified to tie their shoe laces. I have been through uni and I can tell most climastrologists are “C” students. That’s not “C” for credit average, that’s “C” for conceded pass.

Secondly everyone knows the David Apell argument against sceptics “but, but, but it’s not peer reviewed” was destroyed for the fellow travellers when the climategate email – “we’ll keep these papers out even if we have to redefine what peer review means” was exposed. All can now see the poor quality of pal review that is the rotten core of climastrology.

Now when someone is defending the “but they’re not a climate scientist” or “but it wasn’t peer reviewed by climate scientists” lines, I start to ask questions. The defence may be oblique, but over many threads and sites it becomes apparent.

Nobel for Higgs Boson Discovery Ignores How Modern Science Works
“The Nobel Prize for the theoretical discovery of the Higgs boson, a tiny particle that explains why the building blocks of the universe have mass, went to Peter Higgs, from the UK, and Francois Englert from Belgium. They represent just two of the six scientists who made the Higgs boson prediction as part of three independent groups in 1964—not to mention the thousands of scientists and engineers who helped confirm the existence of the particle at the 27-kilometer-long Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, in Geneva.

Glamorous prizes such as the $1.2 million Nobel celebrate the idea of the “great man” (or woman) by recognizing just a few individuals, said Ashutosh Jogalekar, a chemist, in a blog post for Scientific American. That encourages the public to believe that modern science is still driven by the occasional brilliant genius who works alone to advance his or her field of science—an idea that distorts the reality of many scientists and engineers working together in labs or within international teams.”

These billion dollar projects are replacing the individual scientist, apparently. And all of the processing of the noise to find that signal takes a village. They say it is replicable but really, who has a cool 4 billion laying around?

Poptech, do you like arguing for argument sake? The truth is what ever title a person wishes to go by, or whatever employment they are in, if they present a paper on any scientific research, it can be argued by a peer group. Now if that peer group is biased in their opinion it is validated.
That is what has happened with the UNIPCC. And overtime, when new research comes in, previous arguments and a hypothesis can change. Quantum mechanics for one, and even Stephen Hawkings has changed his mind about black holes? It doesn’t mean previous research was in anyway totally wrong, it has been updated and reviewed. It is the methodology and data collected that is important. But one still stands as correct, Darwins theory on selection. “Survival of the fittest” which translated means those species that are successful in breeding another generation, who go on to breed another generation, etc.
Nature has a selective process that has passed as correct in time.

None of which offered any evidence that Willis “misrepresents his credentials”, and the fact that three articles each offered three different labels, i.e. scientist, engineer and computer modeler, would lead a reasonable observer to the conclude that the journalists applied the labels themselves, versus Willis misrepresenting them.

They offer evidence that he may have. No such conclusion can be drawn as we have not heard from the author’s of the articles. Get all three authors to admit that they did it on their own and I will remove this allegation.

Funny, it seems like everyone with poorly trafficked sites doesn’t like Alexa:

[…]Too bad that hasn’t translated into page views, and once people get to your site they seem to in quite a hurry to move on i.e.:

Funny, that ever computer illiterate who does not know how Alexa works delusionally believes those numbers are accurate.

The fact that you do not understand how significant having a higher page rank is says everything anyone tech savy needs to know about you. I don’t make any money off Popular Technology.net so I don’t spent any time worrying about traffic let alone Alexa rankings (worthless). Regardless, the real traffic numbers for the site have nothing to do with the garbage you are posting.